Buchel v. Gray Bros.

Temple, J. This action is for damages alleged to have .been caused by negligent blasting of rock near plaintiff’s house, by which a rock slide was caused, which destroyed plaintiff’s house, and covered his lot with debris. A jury gave a verdict in favor of plaintiff for three thousand dollars, and defendant now appeals from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.

On the appeal but two points are made: 1. Plaintiff was guilty of negligence which contributed proximately to the injury; and 2. There was no evidence whatever to connect the corporate defendant with the alleged tort.

As has often been observed, the question of negligence is peculiarly for the jury. Even when the evidence is not conflicting, the verdict will not be disturbed if different conclusions can reasonably be drawn therefrom.

Plaintiff’s lot was on Vallejo street, one hundred and thirty-six feet west from Sansome. North of his lot was a steep ridge of hard trap rock, some two hundred feet high. Plaintiff’s lot had been graded back to its full' depth, and, as it was claimed, some seven feet beyond his line. This grading bad been done before plaintiff owned the lot, and before defendants owned the adjoining property upon which the ledge was situ[423]ated. The rock beyond plaintiff’s line had been removed by blasting, but there was no proof whatever as to who did it. Probably it was done by some one who formerly Owned plaintiff’s lot; but this was not shown, and it may have been done by some one who had use for the material, but did not claim the lot, and did not convey to plaintiff. At all events, such was the condition of things when plaintiff bought, and also when defendants acquired their interest in the ledge. The defendants were blasting upon this ledge some one hundred and fifty feet away. The last blast, some two days before the rock slide, was a very heavy blast, and shook down large masses of rock at the time, and, as the jury found, caused the slide.

Defendants contend that the removal of the rock at the base of the cliff destroyed the support and caused the “overhang” of the cliff, and thus contributed directly and proximately to the accident. According to some of the witnesses there had for a long time been a crevice or seam at the top of the ledge, and some twenty-five feet from the edge. This seam was found to be wider just after the heavy blast, and, of course, just before the fall. The idea is that this rift was caused by the removal of the support by excavating back of plaintiff’s lot; that the accident could not have occurred but for this, and it is assumed that this was done by plaintiff’s grantor.