## Facts

- W. W. Thigpen owned a building and residence property in Grants, New Mexico.
- Skousen & Hise, a highway construction partnership, conducted nearby blasting with dynamite during a highway project.
- Thigpen alleged two categories of blasting-related damage:
  - Rocks, dirt, and debris were thrown onto and against his buildings and contents.
  - Concussion and vibrations (including shock waves and related subsoil disturbance and settling) caused structural damage to the buildings.
- Thigpen sued for damages in two separate causes of action: one for debris impact damage and one for concussion/vibration structural damage.
- At trial, evidence that debris from the blasting struck Thigpen’s buildings was not disputed.
- The trial court instructed the jury to find for Thigpen on the debris claim and to assess the amount of damages caused by the debris.
- The trial court further instructed the jury to find for Thigpen on the concussion/vibration claim if it found by a preponderance of the evidence that blasting-caused shock waves and related effects caused the structural damage.
- The jury awarded Thigpen $1,165.75 for debris damage and $4,000 for concussion/vibration damage; judgment entered for $5,165.75.
- Skousen & Hise appealed, arguing the instructions improperly allowed recovery without requiring proof of negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether a blaster may be held liable without proof of negligence for damage caused by rocks and debris physically thrown onto neighboring property.
2. Whether a blaster may be held liable without proof of negligence for damage to neighboring structures caused solely by concussion or vibrations from blasting, without physical debris entering the property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the judgment for Thigpen.
- The court upheld liability without negligence for damage caused by debris cast onto Thigpen’s property.
- The court also upheld liability without negligence for damage caused solely by concussion and vibrations from blasting.
- The court approved the challenged instructions as properly making causation (and damages), not negligence, the controlling questions.

## Legal Principles

- Blasting is treated as an ultrahazardous activity for which the actor is strictly liable for direct and proximate property damage it causes.
- Strict liability applies both to:
  - Physical invasion damage (rocks, dirt, or debris thrown onto another’s property), and
  - Non-invasive damage caused by concussion, shock waves, vibrations, and related subsoil disturbance and settling.
- Where evidence of causation is undisputed as to a category of harm, a court may instruct the jury to find for the plaintiff on liability and submit only the amount of damages for determination.
- For strict liability blasting claims, the plaintiff must prove causation and resulting damage; proof of negligence is not required.

## Conclusion

The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed a judgment awarding damages for blasting-related harm and held that a contractor conducting blasting operations is strictly liable for property damage caused both by debris cast onto neighboring property and by concussion or vibrations, with liability turning on causation rather than negligence.


Thigpen v. Skousen & Hise, 327 P.2d 802 (N.M. 1958)