with whom SAUFLEY, C.J., joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 41] I concur in the result of the Court’s carefully written and well-researched opinion vacating the trial court’s judgment. I do not join the Court’s opinion because, in my view, the Dyers may recover if they can prove causation under existing Maine law. Therefore, we should have no occasion to ignore the doctrine of stare decisis and cast aside existing law to (1) create a common law rule of strict liability when blasting damages are alleged, and (2) overrule prevailing precedent that already allows recovery of damages if negligence and causation can be demonstrated in a blasting case. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s expansion of the current, limited statutory rule of strict liability for blasting cases stated in 17 M.R.S. § 2791 (2009).8
[¶ 42] As the Court’s opinion states, the record on summary judgment must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-prevailing party, here the Dyers. See Jorgensen v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ME 42, ¶ 2, 969 A.2d 912, 914. The Court’s opinion accurately states the facts of this case, viewed in that light. Thus the facts are not repeated here.
[¶ 43] We have a prior opinion, Cratty v. Samuel Aceto & Co., 151 Me. 126, 116 A.2d 623 (1955), that is virtually on all fours with the facts and issues in this case. In Cratty, as here, damage to a home was observed following blasting activity. In Cratty, we declined the plaintiffs invitation to adopt a rule of strict liability for blasting cases. However, we allowed the plaintiff to proceed on negligence and res ipsa loquitur theories of recovery. 151 Me. at 130-35, 116 A.2d at 626-28.
[¶ 44] There are minor differences between Cratty and this case. In Cratty, the blasting occurred as close as 200 feet from the home. Here it occurred as close as 100 feet from the home. In Cratty, there was no evidence of any standards to measure risk. Here there is evidence of the *222Bureau of Mines risk standards and evidence of violation of those standards in at least six blasts. Thus, under our existing law, the instant case may be more favorable to the plaintiffs than the case stated in Cratty, and we should permit the Dyers to proceed with their claim in accordance with the law that has governed such eases since Cratty.
A. Stare Decisis
[¶ 45] Stare decisis, the practice of appellate courts respecting their own past precedent in interpreting the law, and applying that precedent in the present to resolve similar questions of law, is a staple of appellate decision-making. “Stare deci-sis embodies the important social policy of continuity in the law by providing for consistency and uniformity of decisions.” Bourgeois v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 1999 ME 10, ¶ 5, 722 A.2d 369, 371.
[¶ 46] Stare decisis helps to assure that an appellate judge’s view that a prior decision may have been wrongly decided is, standing alone, insufficient to justify overruling the decision. See Alexandre v. State, 2007 ME 106, ¶ 35, 927 A.2d 1155, 1164. Appellate courts proceed with great care before overruling a prior decision, and do so only after careful analysis and based on a compelling reason. Id. “We do not disturb a settled point of law unless the prevailing precedent lacks vitality and the capacity to serve the interests of justice.” Bourgeois, ¶ 5, 722 A.2d at 371, citing Myrick v. James, 444 A.2d 987, 1000 (Me.1982) (quotation marks omitted).
[¶ 47] As discussed below, our prevailing precedent is viable and serves the interests of justice, providing grounds upon which the Dyers may recover if they can prove their claim. There is no need to disturb settled points of law to extend the doctrine of strict liability to blasting activities.
B. Negligence
[¶ 48] We have held that a prima facie case of negligence to avoid summary judgment requires that a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a duty or standard of care; (2) breach of that duty or standard of care; (3) an injury to the plaintiff caused by that breach of duty or standard of care; and (4) damages. Mastriano v. Blyer, 2001 ME 134, ¶ 11, 779 A.2d 951, 954.
[¶ 49] Here the trial court has already determined that there is sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment on the standard of care and breach of the standard of care issues. Thus, the only dispute for resolution on this appeal is whether there remain disputed facts relating to the issue of causation. The Court holds, and I agree, that the Dyers have produced sufficient evidence to survive Maine Drilling’s motion for summary judgment on the causation issue incident to their negligence claim. See Cratty, 151 Me. at 131-35, 116 A.2d at 626-28. Thus, based on the Court’s reasoning, and with the trial court having found fact disputes regarding the standard of care and breach of the standard of care, the Dyers’ negligence claim may proceed to trial.
[¶ 50] Further, it is important to remember that Cratty has already established that expert testimony is not necessary to prove negligence, including causation, in a blasting damages case. 151 Me. at 131, 116 A.2d at 627 (“It is nevertheless rare that damage is caused to adjoining property, if the blaster uses reasonable care that the law requires that he should use. This is common knowledge to every school boy and to *223every adult citizen.”).9
[¶ 51] Given the conclusion that there is sufficient record evidence as to each element of negligence to withstand Maine Drilling’s motion for summary judgment, neither we nor the trial court, on remand, need to consider application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. See Sheltra v. Rochefort, 667 A.2d 868, 870 (Me.1995); Poulin v. Aquaboggan Waterslide, 567 A.2d 925, 926 (Me.1989).10
C. Strict Liability
[¶ 52] In Cratty, confirming our prior holding in Reynolds v. W.H. Hinman Co., 145 Me. 343, 361-62, 75 A.2d 802, 811 (1950), we held that there is no common law strict liability for damages observed after blasting and that to recover damages, negligence on the part of the blaster must be alleged and proved. 151 Me. at 130, 116 A.2d at 626. We should decline to overrule Cratty and adopt a rule of strict liability in blasting cases at this time. Such a change in the law is not required to permit the Dyers’ claim to be heard.
[¶ 53] The Legislature has already enacted a law establishing strict liability in blasting cases in certain, very limited, circumstances. That law, 17 M.R.S. § 2791, states that when a person engaged in blasting fails to “give seasonable notice thereof, so that all persons or teams approaching shall have time to retire to a safe distance,” or detonates an explosion after sunset, the person violating the notice mandate or the after sunset detonation prohibition “is liable for all damages caused by any explosion.” The Court’s action today, expanding strict liability from this limited area to all blasting activity, renders section 2791 unnecessary statutory surplusage. Our rules of statutory construction direct that, when possible, we should not construe statutes — or the common law — to render statutory language *224surplusage or meaningless. Stromberg-Carlson Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 2001 ME 11, ¶ 9, 765 A.2d 566, 569; Finks v. Me. State Highway Comm’n, 328 A.2d 791, 799. We should leave it to the Legislature, as a matter of policy, to determine whether or not to adopt an expanded rule of strict liability for all cases of damage caused by blasting.
[¶ 54] With the guidance provided by Cratty on blasting claims and our more recent cases on negligence and causation issues, we should leave resolution of this claim to the trial court, based on our existing body of law. We should not overrule Cratty and create a new common law rule of strict liability, avoiding any need to demonstrate negligence in any blasting case.
. Title 17 M.R.S. § 2791 (2008) states that when a person engaged in blasting fails to "give seasonable notice thereof, so that all persons or teams approaching shall have time to retire to a safe distance” or detonates an explosion after sunset, the person violating the notice mandate or the after sunset detonation prohibition, "is liable for all damages caused by any explosion.” Neither notice nor after sunset explosions are at issue in this case.
. See generally M.R. Evid. 702; Maravell v. R.J. Grondin & Sons, 2007 ME 1, ¶ 11, 914 A.2d 709, 713 (stating that expert testimony may not be necessary "where the negligence and harmful results are sufficiently obvious as to lie within common knowledge”); see also Albison v. Robbins & White, Inc., 151 Me. 114, 124-25, 116 A.2d 608, 613 (1955).
Courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that causation may be shown, or that the plaintiff may survive a summary judgment motion, based on the observations of a layperson. See, e.g., Birmingham Coal & Coke Co. v. Johnson, 10 So.3d 993, 997-98 (Ala. 2008) (affirming award of damages in blasting case where plaintiffs presented evidence of feeling vibrations in the house and damage after blasting, but did not present expert testimony on causation); King v. New Haven Trap Rock Co., 146 Conn. 482, 152 A.2d 503, 504 (1959) (holding that expert testimony was not required to prove causation and damage in that blasting concussion case); McCuller v. Drummond Co., 714 So.2d 298, 299 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to a summary judgment when the plaintiff provided evidence concerning causa-lion that the home was damaged after blasting in a manner consistent with blasting damage, but did not provide testimony as to causation from a blasting expert).
. Res ipsa loquitur may apply only when a plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) an injury or damage to the plaintiff was caused by an unexplained event; (2) at the time of the damage, the instrument causing the damage was under the defendant's control or management; (3) in the ordinary course of events, the damage would not have occurred in the absence of negligence; and (4) other potential causes of the damage, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. See Sheltra v. Rochefort, 667 A.2d 868, 870 (Me.1995); Poulin v. Aquaboggan Waterslide, 567 A.2d 925, 926 (Me.1989). Here, the Dyers allege that blasting activity, done in violation of Bureau of Mines standards, is the cause of their damages. With causation alleged to be based on an explained event, and a standard of care identified and alleged to have been violated, there is no occasion to consider a res ipsa loquitur theory of recovery.