268 P.2d 645 (Wash. 1954).

One-Sentence Takeaway: Courts will impose strict liability only if the resultant harm was withing the scope of the specific risk that justifies the imposition of strict liability in the first place.


Defendant conducted blasting activities more than two miles from Plaintiff’s mink ranch.  The relatively moderate noise and vibration of the blasting activity, which was not unusual for the community, frightened a mother mink owned by Plaintiff causing it to kill its kittens.  The court refused to hold Defendant strictly liable because the risk at issue (sound and vibration from the blast causing wild animals to kill their young) was not the type of risk (e.g., the risk of flying debris) that made blasting a strict liability activity in the first place.

Related entries