Torts - Cases, Principles, and Institutions Fifth Edition, 2016a

Witt & Tani, TCPI 9. Liability without Fault?
confine and control animals in light of their characteristics. Mr. Rhodes’s unfortunate excursion
with Mr. MacHugh’s ram does not persuade us that the limited scope of strict liability that
Washington has historically imposed on the owners of domestic animals should be enlarged. 4
Affirmed.
Note
1. Wild animals. Tort law holds possessors of wild animals to the same level of
responsibility as possessors of abnormally dangerous animals. In the Restatement formulation:
“A possessor of a wild animal is subject to liability to another for harm done by the animal to the
other, his person, land or chattels, although the possessor has exercised the utmost care to confine
the animal, or otherwise prevent it from doing harm.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §
507(1) (1977). Note that as with abnormally dangerous animals, the possessor of a wild animal is
not strictly liable for any harm that the animal causes—only “harm that results from a dangerous
propensity that is characteristic of wild animals of the particular class, or of which the possessor
knows or has reason to know.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 507(2) (1977). Can you
imagine a concrete scenario in which this language would allow a possessor of a wild animal to
avoid being held strictly liable for an injury the animal caused?
C. Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Spano v. Perini Corp., 250 N.E.2d 31 (N.Y. 1969)
FULD, C.J.
The principal question posed on this appeal is whether a person who has sustained
property damage caused by blasting on nearby property can maintain an action for damages
without a showing that the blaster was negligent. Since 1893, when this court decided the case of
Booth v. Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Terminal Railroad, 140 N.Y. 267 (1893), it has been
the law of this State that proof of negligence was required unless the blast was accompanied by an
actual physical invasion of the damaged property—for example, by rocks or other material being
cast upon the premises. We are now asked to reconsider that rule.
The plaintiff Spano is the owner of a garage in Brooklyn which was wrecked by a blast
occurring on November 27, 1962. There was then in that garage, for repairs, an automobile owned
by the plaintiff Davis which he also claims was damaged by the blasting. Each of the
plaintiffs brought suit against the two defendants who, as joint venturers, were engaged in
constructing a tunnel in the vicinity pursuant to a contract with the City of New York. The two
cases were tried together, without a jury, in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York
County, and judgments were rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The judgments were reversed by
the Appellate Term and the Appellate Division affirmed that order, granting leave to appeal to this
court.
489