219 N.E.3d 221
Ind. Ct. App.2023Background
- Cave Quarries operates a limestone quarry and requested Warex (an explosives/blasting contractor) to perform multiple blasts on a high wall near Cave Quarries’ asphalt plant.
- On March 3, 2021, a Warex-blast failed to perform as designed (due to an unexpected mud seam) and destroyed the on-site asphalt plant.
- Cave Quarries sued Warex asserting strict liability for blasting (alternatively negligence); Warex admitted performing the blast and that damage occurred but disputed strict liability and denied negligence.
- At summary judgment, Cave Quarries argued strict liability automatically applied to blasting; Warex argued (among other things) that Cave Quarries assumed the risk and that negligence was the proper standard.
- The trial court denied Cave Quarries’ motion, reasoning strict liability should not be extended where the property owner requested and benefited from the blasting and made key decisions about the blast.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held strict liability for blasting is not appropriate under these facts (owner-directed, owner-benefiting blast) and remanded for the negligence claim; it directed entry of judgment for Warex on the strict liability count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blasting here is subject to strict liability | Cave Quarries: blasting is long-established as strictly liable in Indiana; strict liability applies as a matter of law | Warex: strict liability is not appropriate because Cave Quarries requested, directed, and benefited from the blast; alternative negligence standard applies | Held: strict liability does not apply where the plaintiff requested and benefited from the blasting; negligence standard governs |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Cave Quarries’ summary judgment on strict liability | Cave Quarries: no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment should be entered for strict liability | Warex: factual context precludes automatic strict liability and raises assumption-of-risk/comparative-fault issues | Held: trial court did not err; summary judgment on strict liability properly denied and judgment entered for Warex on that count |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 2003) (describes strict liability concept independent of negligence)
- Enos Coal Mining Co. v. Schuchart, 188 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1963) (applies absolute liability for blasting-related trespass and vibrations)
- Galbreath v. Eng’g Constr. Corp., 273 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 1971) (extends strict liability to proximate damages proximately caused by blasting)
- Haseman v. Orman, 680 N.E.2d 531 (Ind. 1997) (explains policy placing loss on the actor who benefits from the dangerous activity)
- Erbrich Prods. Co., Inc. v. Wills, 509 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (uses Restatement framework to evaluate abnormally dangerous activities)
- Hedges v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Ind., Inc., 396 N.E.2d 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (recognizes application of strict liability doctrine to blasting operations)