
    Wiener v. Hammell et al.
    
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term.
    
    May 8, 1891.)
    1. Negligence—Blasting in New York City.
    In an action for injuries caused by blasting rock in New York city, it is error to refuse to charge that no recovery can be had in the absence of proof that the blasting was done negligently. .
    
      2. Same—Contractors.
    Where the owner of property in New York city employs a competent contractor to blast out rock, he is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of the contractor.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Joseph Wiener against Dietrich Hammell and others. Judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
    Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and Fitzsimons and McCarthy, JJ.
    
      George C. Lay and W. G. Chittick, Jr., for appellants. J. H. Rogan, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

Blasting rock in the city of New York is necessary, and, as a consequence, legal, and no recovery can be had for damages caused by blasting, except on proof of negligence. The trial judge refused to charge this proposition. The owner of property who employs a competent contractor to do the work, and does not direct it himself, is not liable to a person injured by the negligence of the contractor. The trial judge .refused to charge this proposition. These two errors require that the judgment be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.  