Tbе evidence, viewed in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiffs, tends to sbow that when tbe defendant’s blasting in connection witb its mining operations is carried on in a careful and workmanlike manner it would only throw small gravеl and small rock at short distances, never as far as to tbe residence of tbe plaintiffs, and that tbe nоise from tbe blast was not such as to disturb tbe plaintiffs; that on tbe day in question there was an unusually loud and violent еxplosion caused by tbe blasting of tbe defendant; that this blasting burled rock through tbe roof, walls, and windows of tbe bouse and into tbe kitchen of plaintiffs; that tbe feme plaintiff was then in ber kitchen; that she suffered terrible shock and injury' to her nerves, resulting in loss of weight, nervousness, periodical confinement in bed, and other ailments; that tbe defendant ordinarily gave notice to tbe plaintiffs and others prior to blasting, but that on this occasion it failed to give any notice to these plaintiffs; that about 28 days prior- to tbe blasting in controversy tbe defеndant’s employees bad drilled seven deep boles and thirty dobie boles; that tbe boles ranged from seven inches to ten feet deep; that on tbe day of tbe blasting defendant’s employees ascеrtained that tbe gunny sacks put in tbe boles when drilled bad been removed and tbe boles bad been filled witb roсks, sticks, steel, and other debris; that defendant’s agent in charge of blasting began to unstop tbe boles; that in sо doing be located one-balf joint of dynamite in one of tbe boles, wbicb was not put there by him or witb bis knowledge; that when be found tbe dynamite be did no more work whatsoever towards cleaning. out tbe boles, beсause be became frightened. He went ahead and loaded them and put from one-fourth joint to оne-balf joint in ten dobie boles and one-balf joint in tbe eight-foot bole, wbicb bad been cleared оut a distance of from 18 inches to four feet; that thereupon tbe ten dobie boles and the large bоle were connected to tbe lead wire and “fired”; that tbe explosion wbicb resulted was out of proportion to tbe quantity of dynamite put in tbe boles by tbe blaster.
It appears from this testimony that tbe blаst in question was unusually violent and out of tbe ordinary, and that it threw rocks a distance of *213 125 feet over, aсross, and upon the house of the plaintiffs, doing damage to the house and frightening the feme plaintiff to such an еxtent that she has been more or less incapacitated since. It also tends to show that the agent of the defendant discovered that dynamite had been put in the blasting holes without his knowledge or direction, and that notwithstanding such information he abandoned further effort to clear out the holes or to ascertain to what extent the holes had been loaded with dynamite by some other person; that he, having received warning from his discovery, and having knowledge that the holes had been tampered with and dynamite put therein, proceeded to further load the holes and to wire and fire them without first ascertaining to whаt extent, if any, the holes had already been loaded with dynamite. In that connection defendant’s witness tеstified: “I didn’t clear the 8-foot hole clean because there was in it rock and dirt and sticks and I never gоt it cleaned out and I couldn’t tell you what was in it down there, only there was bound to have been some explosive. I don’t know what was in that hole, but I found enough to be careful. It kind of excited me; you see this one hole was actually loaded and nobody knew about it.. Dobie holes are more dangerous to sсatter little things than the holes drilled and loaded deep. They make little damage. A big damage is like I tell yоu, you have to throw big rocks to go through a house and you have got to have more than dobies shooting a large hole in a house.”
This evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury upon the question of defendant’s negligence. "Where there is testimony tending to show that injuries done to the adjacent land, or the buildings on it, were due to the use of unsafe or unnecessarily violent explosive material, or were cаused by the careless management of the materials in common use, and also contradictory еvidence, it is for the jury t.o find the facts upon which the question of negligence depends. Where a human being is killed or injured at his dwelling on his own land by a blast on the right of way, condemned out of the same tract, in addition tо passing upon the questions whether proper material was used and handled with skill, the testimony may make it material for the jury to determine whether the agents of the corporation had been accustоmed to give the injured party a signal before igniting the powder, and, if so, whether such notice was given befоre the explosion which caused the injury.
Blackwell v. R. R.,
The fact that the
feme
plaintiff was not actually struck by one of the flying rocks does nоt necessarily preclude recovery.
Wiggins v. R. R.,
While fright and nervousness alone, unaccompanied or followed by physical injury, do not constitute an element of damages, if this fright and nervousness is a natural and direct result of the negligent act of the
*214
defendant and naturally and directly causes an impairment of health, or loss of bodily power, then this would constitute an element of injury to be considered by the jury.
Kimberly v. Howland,
The judgment of nonsuit is Reversed.