Blasters are usually strictly liable for injury or damage caused by flyrock (trespassory invasion) and blast-induced vibrations (non-trespassory invasion). The application of strict liability to non-trespassory invasions has resulted in significant litigation that has hampered the use of blasting and the blasting industry. Stark (2002) proposes that blasters should not be held strictly liable for non-trespassory invasions but should be liable only if their conduct is proven to be negligent. This change in legal standard was proposed because improvements in blasting technology over the last thirty years allow blasting to be conducted without substantial risk of harm to property and thus the amount of harm imposed by a blast can be related to the level of care exercised by the blaster. It is anticipated that negligence standard will reduce the amount of litigation because a plaintiff will have a greater burden to overcome. To facilitate the acceptance of negligence standard by a court of law, this paper illustrates the application of the negligence and strict tort liability frameworks using actual cases in which a decision was rendered. It is evident from these cases that some of the successful claims under the strict liability framework would not have been successful, and probably not litigated, under a negligence framework, which could result in substantial cost savings to the blasting industry and consumers.
Application of Strict Liabilty and Negligence to Blasting Claims