Legal Opinion · Dissent

Beckstrom v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1958No. 3065Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OP

RICE, C. J.

I respectfully dissent.

I concede the correctness of the majority’s view as to the nonapplicability of Mutual Telephone Company v. Hawaiian Contracting Company, Limited, 31 Haw. 296, to the instant case and that the question whether the defendant’s blasting was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiffs’ house should be submitted to the jury. However, I disagree with the majority in respect to the adoption in this Territory of the rule of absolute liability of a user of dynamite, regardless of the extent of care in the use thereof and I would modify the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Booth v. . R., W. O.T.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Benton Gravel Company v. WrightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
  3. Foster v. Preston Mill Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Albison v. Robbins & White, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
  5. Mutual Telephone Co. v. Hawaiian Contracting Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API