## Facts

- Vera E. Dyer and her sons owned a long-held residential property in Prospect, Maine, consisting of a single-family home and detached garage.
- Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc., conducted rock blasting for a nearby state bridge-replacement and road project and notified area landowners that blasting would begin in early October 2004.
- At the homeowners’ request, the contractor performed a pre-blast survey documenting certain preexisting conditions, including concrete deterioration, floor cracking, and a slight tilt in portions of the structure.
- From about October 2004 through August 2005, the contractor conducted more than 100 blasts, with the closest detonation occurring about 100 feet from the home.
- After blasting began, the homeowners observed substantial new or worsened conditions, including settlement of the basement floor, an unlevel first floor associated with sagging of a center beam, new foundation and wall cracking, and displacement of a retaining wall.
- The homeowners’ expert opined that the house might sit on uncontrolled fill and that blasting vibrations could have caused settlement and related damage, given the timing and observed changes.
- The contractor relied on blasting records and seismographic measurements indicating vibration levels remained within generally accepted limits and contended the blasting was not negligent and could not have caused the alleged damage.

## Issues

1. Whether Maine law recognizes strict liability for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520, including blasting.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record created a genuine issue of material fact on causation between the blasting and the alleged property damage.
3. Whether res ipsa loquitur could be used to establish negligence in this property-damage blasting dispute.

## Decision

- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520 and held that strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities, expressly including blasting.
- The court vacated summary judgment for the contractor on the strict-liability and negligence claims because factual disputes remained on causation.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur did not apply on the record presented.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A party conducting an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for harm resulting from that activity even if it exercised the utmost care to prevent harm.  
- Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question of law for the court, guided by the Restatement § 520 factors (risk level, likelihood of great harm, inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care, commonness of use, appropriateness of location, and value weighed against danger).
- On summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the nonmovant’s favor; temporal proximity, lay observations, and circumstantial evidence can permit a reasonable inference of causation, and expert testimony is not invariably required to survive summary judgment.
- Res ipsa loquitur requires an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen absent negligence and is sufficiently connected to the defendant’s control; it does not apply when the harm could occur without negligence and multiple other causes are plausible.

## Conclusion

The court brought Maine in line with the Restatement rule imposing strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, including blasting, and held that the homeowners’ evidence created a triable causation dispute requiring reversal of summary judgment, while rejecting res ipsa loquitur because the damage could have occurred without negligence and other causes remained plausible.


Dyer v. Me. Drilling & Blasting, Inc., 984 A.2d 210 (Me. 2009)