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

plaintiffdamagesnegligenceliabilitystatutetrialstrict liabilitycommon law
defendantdamagesnegligenceliability

Related Cases

Castro v. QVC Network, Inc., 139 F.3d 114, 34 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 946, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,169
View Case »
Bogdanski v. Budzik, 408 P.3d 1156, 2018 WY 7
View Case »
Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171
View Case »
Marciniak v. Lundborg, 153 Wis.2d 59, 450 N.W.2d 243, 58 USLW 2460
View Case »
McDougald v. Garber, 73 N.Y.2d 246, 536 N.E.2d 372, 538 N.Y.S.2d 937, 57 USLW 2519
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wadleigh v. City of Manchester, 100 N.H. 277, 123 A.2d 831

Facts

The plaintiff sought damages for her dwelling house, claiming that concussion and earth tremors from blasting operations by the City of Manchester during curb installation caused the damage. The curbing was purchased by the abutters and installed by the city without charge. The trial court transferred questions regarding the city's liability for the injuries caused by the blasting operations.

The parties agreed that ‘the curbing was purchased by the abutters and installed by the City of Manchester, without charge’.

Issue

Is the City of Manchester liable for injury to private property resulting from blasting operations in the installation of curbing, and if so, is such liability absolute or based on negligence?

1. Is the City of Manchester liable for injury to private property resulting from blasting operations in the installation of curbing?

Rule

A municipality may be liable for damages resulting from negligent blasting operations, but not under a strict liability standard unless specifically provided by statute or common law.

A municipality acts in a governmental capacity in the construction and maintenance of its highways and is ordinarily immune from liability for injuries caused by the negligent performance of such work.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the municipality's actions, determining that if the blasting was performed in a governmental capacity, the city would typically be immune from liability. However, if the blasting was conducted in a private capacity, the city could be held liable for negligence. The court also noted that there is no established rule of strict liability for property damage caused by blasting in New Hampshire.

If, as suggested by the fact that ‘the curbing was purchased by the abutters and installed by the City of Manchester, without charge’, the blasting in question was being performed by the defendant in its private capacity, it is liable for damages resulting from its negligent conduct of that work.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the City of Manchester is not absolutely liable for injury to private property from blasting operations unless negligence is proven. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The answer to the transferred questions is that the city of Manchester is not absolutely liable for injury to private property by concussion from blasting operations in the installation of curbing on the count in case in which no negligence is alleged.

Who won?

The City of Manchester prevailed because the court ruled that liability for property damage must be based on negligence rather than strict liability.

The municipality would be liable, on the count alleging negligence, if concussion causing damage resulted from blasting which was negligently done.

You must be