## Facts

- Sherman Power Construction Company conducted a hydroelectric project in Bellows Falls, Vermont, and stored dynamite for blasting operations in a small hut.
- The hut was on the west bank of the Connecticut River, about 935 feet from the Exners’ dwelling, where they rented rooms and operated a restaurant and lunchroom.
- The storage site was near a thickly settled area and within fifty rods of multiple inhabited and commercial buildings owned by others.
- The day before the incident, twenty 50-pound cases of dynamite were delivered to the hut, in addition to dynamite already stored there.
- On February 18, 1928, an explosion destroyed the hut, killed three workers removing dynamite, and produced a blast force felt by a nearby eyewitness.
- The blast threw Mrs. Exner from bed, damaged the Exners’ building requiring extensive repairs, and harmed their business.
- A Vermont statute made it unlawful to keep large quantities of explosives within fifty rods of an inhabited building; the defendant asserted the storage location was the only reasonable option and that an official had consented to it.

## Issues

1. Whether storing large quantities of dynamite near an inhabited community subjects the storer to strict liability for explosion damage without proof of negligence.
2. Whether the Vermont explosives statute limited recovery to persons or property within its specified distance, thereby restricting common-law recovery by those outside that radius.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Exners.
- The court held that storing large quantities of dynamite in or near a populated area is an ultrahazardous activity imposing strict (absolute) liability for harm caused by an explosion, regardless of the care used or uncertainty as to the ignition’s cause.
- The court held the Vermont statute did not displace or limit common-law liability; plaintiffs outside the statute’s distance restriction could still recover under common-law strict liability.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity that creates a risk of grave harm not eliminable by the utmost care may be held strictly liable for resulting damage.
- In cases involving high explosives, liability may attach without proof of negligence when explosive forces cause personal injury or property damage as a natural consequence of the activity’s danger.
- Statutory regulation of explosives, including distance-based prohibitions and criminal penalties, does not necessarily preempt or confine common-law tort remedies unless the statute clearly does so.
- Regulatory approval or asserted necessity of the storage location does not negate strict liability when the activity itself subjects others to extraordinary risk.

## Conclusion

The court treated the mass storage of dynamite near a settled community as an ultrahazardous activity and required the defendant to bear resulting losses from the explosion without requiring proof of negligence, while rejecting the argument that a distance-based explosives statute limited common-law recovery.


Exner v. Sherman Power Constr. Co., 54 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1931)