Legal Opinion
Spano v. Perini Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 5, 1969PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Judge Fuld.
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, W. & O. T. R. R. Co. (140 N. Y. 267), 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…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hay v. . the Cohoes CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Booth v. . R., W. O.T.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Rager v. McCloskeyNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Heeg v. . LichtNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Whitman Hotel Corporation v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
- 532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Doundoulakis v. Town of HempsteadNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Shipman v. Words of Power Missionary Enterprises, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Koester v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.