A contractor used dynamite to loosen a rocky hillside. The blast from the dynamite caused a house foundation to crack. The house was located over a half-mile away from the dynamite site. The contractor was careful when using the dynamite and no allegation of negligence is made. However, the house owner claims the contractor is liable for damage to the foundation. Is the house owner correct?Explain.

The house owner is correct because strict liability applies in the case. Strict liability refers to the responsibility an individual or organization has over actions incurred even if there was no intention of causing property or personal injuries. Strict liability only considers if the action was the result of the damage.

Answer Link

JackelineCasarez JackelineCasarez · Answer 2 · 2022-01-20T15:33:18+01:00

The assertion that could be made regarding the given situation would be as follows:

Yes, the house owner is correct under the term of "strict liability."

In the given situation, the house owner is correct that the contractor is legally liable to cause the damage to the foundation.
The reason behind this is the term of "strict liability" and thus, he will have to compensate for the loss.
Since the contractor used dynamite, he is liable to bear the consequences brought by it despite being careful.

Learn more about "Contractor" here:

brainly.com/question/13339879