Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.

Brief Fact Summary.

Defendant was selected to set off public fireworks at a state fairground for an event. During the event, all the fireworks exploded and Plaintiffs were injured. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant. The trial court found in Plaintiffs’ favor regarding the strict liability claim, but against Plaintiff for the product liability claim. Defendant appealed the strict liability claim.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

An operator of a public firework display is strictly liable for any harm resulting from the public firework display.

Facts.

Pyrodyne Corporation was contracted to conduct a public fireworks display at the Western Washington State Fairgrounds in Puyallup, Washington, on July 4, 1987. As part of the contract, Pyrodyne was required to procure a $1 million liability insurance policy. During the fireworks show, one of the aerial shells misfired due to a mortar being knocked into a horizontal position. The shell exploded near the crowd, injuring Danny and Marion Klein along with others.

The Kleins filed a lawsuit against Pyrodyne, claiming strict liability and product liability. They alleged that Pyrodyne’s employees had failed to properly bury the mortar tubes, provide necessary safety measures such as crowd control, and adhere to other regulatory requirements. Pyrodyne argued that the misfire was due to a manufacturing defect. The trial court ruled against the Kleins on the product liability claim but held Pyrodyne strictly liable under the doctrine of abnormally dangerous activities. Pyrodyne appealed the decision.

The Washington Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, concluding that the fireworks display constituted an abnormally dangerous activity, justifying the imposition of strict liability on Pyrodyne regardless of the level of care exercised. The court emphasized that activities involving explosives near large crowds inherently pose a high risk of harm, which cannot be completely eliminated even with strict adherence to safety protocols.

Issue.

Whether an operator of a public firework display is strictly liable for any harm resulting from the public firework display

Held.

Yes, an operator of a public firework display is strictly liable for any harm resulting from the public firework display

Concurrence.

The court properly imposed strict liability on Defendant pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 70.77.285. However, the factors the majority relies upon to deem the conduct abnormally dangerous activity do not support liability.

Discussion.

Underthe Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519, which Washington has adopted, one is strictly liable, regardless of fault, when one carries out “abnormally dangerous” activities. The court must apply a set of factors to determiner whether the activity is abnormally dangerous such as, the presence of a high degree of risk, the probability that resulting harm will be great, the impossibility of eliminating the risk through reasonable care, whether the activity is of common usage, whether the activity is performed in an appropriate location, and whether the value of the activity to the public outweighs its risk. To be deemed “abnormally dangerous,” the activity must implicate more than one factor, but not necessarily all of the above factors. In this case, the court determines that the first four factors support a conclusion that Defendant’s conduct was abnormally dangerous. The act of setting off fireworks before crowds of people involves a high risk of serious injury. Also, the act of complying with applicable regulations is insufficient to eliminate the risk in its entirety.Likewise, the exhibition of public fireworks is not a common activity. Overall, these facts support a finding that public fireworks displays are abnormally dangerous. Additionally, the court disagrees with Defendant’s contention that the manufacturer negligence is an intervening cause so as to relieve Defendant from liability. The court holds that an intervening party will solely relieve a party from strict liability claim for abnormally dangerous activity if the intervening event was unforeseeable relative to the activity’s risk. In this case, the negligence of a fireworks manufacturer are foreseeable in relation to the risks that are inherent in a public fireworks display. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.