Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 14 in Cave Quarries Inc. v. Warex LLC, the case concerning a 2021 incident in which Warex was hired to conduct a blasting procedure that ultimately damaged a Cave Quarries asphalt plant in Paoli.
At the time, Cave Quarries, a limestone quarrying business, had hired Warex to ignite explosives on the property for limestone extraction. Once blasted, the limestone is typically taken from the quarry at the back of the property to an adjacent asphalt plant.
For the blast in question, Cave Quarries selected a high wall near the asphalt plant for the location of the blast in order to build a stockpile of stone near the plant for when winter weather prevented the transportation of stone from the quarry to the plant.
According to the Indiana Court of Appeals, Cave Quarries knew the plant was within the “radius of risk” and continued with the blast after erecting steel plates around the bottom of the plant to protect natural gas lines and gauges and meters.
Cave Quarries filed a complaint against Warex, citing strict liability and negligence.
The Orange Circuit Court denied Cave Quarries’ motion for partial summary judgment, saying strict liability didn’t apply in the case because Cave Quarries “assumed the risk of these damages.” In response, Cave Quarries claimed strict liability is the standard when dealing with blasting activities, and that seeking any other standard would go against state law.
The appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s denial. Now, the Indiana Supreme Court has granted Cave Quarries’ petition to transfer and has jurisdiction over the case.
The appeals court disagreed with Cave Quarries’ claim that strict liability automatically applies to cases involving blasting operations.
The appeals court ruled Cave Quarries cannot compare its case to previous cases involving blasts and strict liability because those other cases apply strict liability to protect unsuspecting third parties. In this case, Cave Quarries is not an unsuspecting third party because it asked Warex to do the blast, chose where it would take place, is familiar with the impact of the blasts and knew the asphalt plant was within the “radius of risk” of the blast location.
Oral arguments will be held in person and online at 9 a.m.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.