240 N.E.3d 681
Ind.2024Background
- Cave Quarries, Inc. owns and operates limestone quarries in Indiana and contracted Warex LLC, a blasting company, to conduct controlled explosions near its asphalt plant.
- The oral contract between the parties did not address liability for accidental damage to Cave Quarries' own property.
- In March 2021, a blast executed by Warex near Cave Quarries’ asphalt plant went awry due to an unseen mud seam, resulting in the destruction of the plant.
- Cave Quarries sued Warex, alleging both strict liability (on the basis that blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity) and negligence.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the trial court ruled that strict liability did not apply and that negligence was the appropriate standard, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed this approach.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to clarify whether a blasting company is strictly liable for damage to its own customer’s property resulting from blasting services performed at the customer’s request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does strict liability for blasting apply to damage to a customer’s property? | Cave Quarries: Blasting is abnormally dangerous; strict liability applies to all damage caused, including to the customer. | Warex: Strict liability is meant to protect neighbors/bystanders; liability to customers should be based on negligence only. | Strict liability does not apply to customer; only negligence standard applies. |
| Should Indiana abandon its bright-line rule on strict liability for blasting? | Cave Quarries: Maintain bright-line; strict liability always for blasting. | Warex: Use a flexible, case-by-case balancing (Restatement (Second) § 520 factors). | Continue bright-line rule: blasting is strictly liable to third parties, but not to customers who hire the blaster. |
| Can the customer recover under strict liability where it participated in and benefited from the blasting? | Cave Quarries: Strict liability allows recovery even for the beneficiary of the blast. | Warex: Customers partake and benefit; policy behind strict liability does not require recovery in this context. | Customer cannot recover under strict liability because it is a participant and beneficiary. |
| What remedy, if any, is available to the customer? | Cave Quarries: Should have access to strict liability and negligence. | Warex: Only negligence claim should proceed, not strict liability. | Only negligence claim may proceed; strict liability dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Compton, 53 Ind. 337 (Ind. 1876) (quarry strictly liable for injury from blasting debris to neighbor)
- Enos Coal Mining Co. v. Schuchart, 188 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1963) (strict liability for blasting's damage to neighboring property)
- Johnson v. Scandia Assocs., Inc., 717 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 1999) (explains negligence and duty of reasonable care)
- Haseman v. Orman, 680 N.E.2d 531 (Ind. 1997) (liability of employer for work that is intrinsically dangerous)
- Galbreath v. Eng’g Const. Corp., 273 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 1971) (strict liability for blasting injury to third-party)