Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceliabilitytrialwill
contractplaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilitytrialwill

Related Cases

Emery v. Tilo Roofing Co., 89 N.H. 165, 195 A. 409
View Case »
Fernandes v. Dar Development Corp., Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL 2660745
View Case »
Reiter v. Dyken, 95 Wis.2d 461, 290 N.W.2d 510
View Case »
Borst v. Borst, 41 Wash.2d 642, 251 P.2d 149
View Case »
Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Ass’n, Inc., 264 Conn. 474, 823 A.2d 1202
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Caporale v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc., 149 Conn. 79, 175 A.2d 561

Facts

Michael Caporale and Acme Tile and Flooring, Inc. sued the defendant for damages to Caporale's property, allegedly caused by vibrations from pile driving operations for the Connecticut turnpike. The plaintiffs initially alleged negligence and later added claims of nuisance and carrying on an intrinsically dangerous operation. The court found that the pile driving, which occurred approximately 75 feet from Caporale's buildings, caused significant damage, including cracks and broken water pipes, and concluded that the defendant was liable.

The plaintiffs, Michael Caporale and Acme Tile and Flooring, Inc., brought this action against the defendant to recover for damage to property which Caporale owned and Acme occupied. The damage was allegedly caused by vibrations resulting from the pile driving operations conducted by the defendant as a subcontractor in the construction of the Connecticut turnpike.

Issue

Did the defendant's pile driving operations constitute an intrinsically dangerous activity that caused damage to the plaintiffs' property, thereby imposing liability without proof of negligence?

Did the defendant's pile driving operations constitute an intrinsically dangerous activity that caused damage to the plaintiffs' property, thereby imposing liability without proof of negligence?

Rule

A person who uses an intrinsically dangerous means to accomplish a lawful end, in such a way as will necessarily or obviously expose the person or property of another to the danger of probable injury, is liable if such injury results, even though he uses all proper care.

A person who uses an intrinsically dangerous means to accomplish a lawful end, in such a way as will necessarily or obviously expose the person or property of another to the danger of probable injury, is liable if such injury results, even though he uses all proper care.

Analysis

The court applied the rule of intrinsic danger by determining that the pile driving operations, which involved heavy machinery and occurred close to the plaintiffs' buildings, created a risk of probable injury. The court noted that the defendant had anticipated potential damage, as evidenced by its inspection of nearby properties before commencing work. The vibrations caused by the pile driving were found to be the proximate cause of the damage, leading to the conclusion that the defendant was liable.

The court applied the rule of intrinsic danger by determining that the pile driving operations, which involved heavy machinery and occurred close to the plaintiffs' buildings, created a risk of probable injury.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant was liable for the damage caused by its intrinsically dangerous operations.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant was liable for the damage caused by its intrinsically dangerous operations.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Michael Caporale and Acme Tile and Flooring, Inc., prevailed because the court found that the defendant's pile driving operations were intrinsically dangerous and directly caused the damage to Caporale's property.

The plaintiffs, Michael Caporale and Acme Tile and Flooring, Inc., prevailed because the court found that the defendant's pile driving operations were intrinsically dangerous and directly caused the damage to Caporale's property.

You must be