Walczesky v. Horvitz Co.

In this appeal, defendant raises five propositions of law in support of its position that the judgment should be reversed.

Defendant’s first contention is that “in the absence of a showing of negligence on his part, a contractor who * * # employs the use of explosives, does not expose himself to liability without fault * *

It is defendant’s position that plaintiff did not prove negligence on the part of defendant in its blasting operations and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that when explosives are used “* * # in such proximity to adjoining property that regardless of the…