Dallas v. Whitney - 118 W. Va. 106, 188 S.E. 766 (1936)

Rule:

Where the work of blasting is done in such proximity to other property that, regardless of the care used, the natural, necessary, or probable result of the force of the explosion would be to break the surface of the ground, destroy the buildings, and produce a concussion of the atmosphere, the force of which will invade the property of another, injuring the buildings, a recovery might be sustained for trespass, regardless of the question of negligence.

Facts:

Plaintiff’s declaration alleged that in connection with their roadwork, defendants used nitroglycerin, dynamite, and other explosives and that defendants had a duty to exercise ordinary care, commensurate with the dangerous character of such explosives, but that they failed to do so. It was further alleged that the nitroglycerin, dynamite, and other explosives exploded with such force and violence that plate glass stored in the glass company's facility was destroyed. The circuit court overruled defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. Defendants challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Did the circuit court err in overruling defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed. Where the work of blasting was done in such proximity to other property that, regardless of the care used, the natural, necessary, or probable result of the force of the explosion was to break the surface of the ground, destroy buildings, and produce a concussion of the atmosphere, the force of which invaded the property of another, injuring the buildings, a recovery could be sustained for trespass, regardless of the question of negligence. The declaration did not sufficiently show that the injury to the glass company's property resulted from the trespass of defendants, although trespass itself was sufficiently averred. The court remanded the case with leave to the glass company to amend its declaration.