Having some trouble grasping everything in Spano v. Perini Corporation
Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.
This case asked the question if one is strictly liable for damages resulting from abnormally dangerous/ultra-hazardous activities.
The answer is yes and the rule of law is that even when activities are abnormally dangerous/ultra-hazardous by nature, occurring injuries that are causally related to that activity are not absolved from liability. The rationale is that where ordinary care is normally required to bar liability, that is not the case in activities that are abnormally dangerous because exercising such care would not prevent the harm from occurring.
A separate question I have: According to this case, is D under any obligation to show a greater degree of care, since the activity (blasting) is abnormally dangerous? Or is this a question not answered by this case?