This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns and operates two limestone quarries. It also used to own and operate an asphalt plant that created asphalt from materials the company extracted from its quarries. P uses controlled explosives for 'blasting' rocks loose from the quarries' walls. D provides controlled explosive and blasting services. When P's in-house blaster retired in 2015, it began hiring D as an independent contractor to conduct blasting at its quarries. One of the risks with blasting is that the blast location may have mud seams that can cause the explosives to slip out of their intended location. Mud seams were sometimes found at one of P's quarries. In 2018, P began asking D to conduct blasting operations along the wall behind the asphalt plant. P knew its asphalt plant was 'within the radius of risk' from the blasting along the quarry wall, and in 2021, it placed steel plates along its asphalt plant to protect it from damage. P requested that D performe blasts near the asphalt plant in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. D had been performing smaller blasts near P's asphalt plant. Smaller blasts are more expensive than a larger blast, but the smaller blasts are also safer. P and D agreed to perform a larger blast at a designated location near the asphalt plant. On March 3 D conducted the larger blast along the quarry wall. The third-party drilling company's report identified no mud seams at the designated blasting site. But unbeknownst to everyone, there was a mud seam, and it caused the explosives to shift and slip out of their intended area. Some of the explosives unintentionally detonated in mid-air. The resulting explosion crushed and destroyed P's asphalt plant. P sued D in strict liability and negligence. D argued that if strict liability does apply, P is barred from recovery because it assumed the risk of damage to its asphalt plant by selecting a blasting area near the plant. P also argued that 'a negligence standard may more appropriately apply to the facts herein.' D moved for partial summary judgment because the case is governed by the negligence standard rather than the strict liability standard. The court held that strict liability should not apply because P 'was not a mere innocent bystander to D’s actions nor the harm that resulted.' P appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the parties' motions for summary judgment and remanded the case with instructions to proceed under the negligence standard. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.