Charles Benner, Resp’t, v. The Atlantic Dredging Company, Applt.(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,Headnote
Negligence—Blasting.In an action for injuries to plaintiff’s house caused by blasting done by defendant at Hell Gate, the court charged that defendant was responsible and refused to charge that to make it liable it must he shown that the work was done in a negligent manner. Held, no error.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon verdict.
During the years 1886, 1887 and 1888, the defendant, under a coatract with certain United States government officials, was engaged in removing rock from under water at Hell Gate in the “Hell Gate Improvement,” so called, in the East river, opposite Astoria, Long Island, in the course of which it had occasion to do blasting with high explosives. These blastings were so conducted as to cause considerable damage in and about Astoria, of which it had notice, its attention being called to the fact and suggestion made that by diminishing the amount of explosive used it could avoid injuring property in the neighborhood. That suggestion was adopted and acted upon for some time, but defendant subsequently resumed its former practice.
In the month of November, 1886, the plaintiff’s dwelling-house on Woolsey street in Astoria, which had theretofore suffered from the explosions, was placed in thorough repair. Thereafter the defendant continued its blasting operations, using charges of sufficient size and force to shake plaintiff’s property and.crack the walls, ceilings and foundations of the house. "Under these circumstances and after the defendant had ceased its operations this action was brought to recover the damages suffered.
Benjamin W. Downing, for app’lt; Henry G. Willcox, for resp’t.
The verdict established that the blasting done by defendant at Hell Gate shook the walls of plaintiff’s house, inflicting injury.
The court charged that for such injury defendant was responsible, and refused to charge that to make defendant liable it must appear that the work was done in a negligent manner.
We think the instruction was correct. If a desirable work can: not be done without shaking down a neighbor’s house, it would seem that the work should not be performed unless the doer was prepared to make compensation for the injury inflicted.
That rule seems best to promote the general welfare. The public are not benefited by a change that inflicts an injury greater than the resulting benefit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.