Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp. - 810 P.2d 917 (Wash. 1991) (en banc)

Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.

810 P.2d 917 (Wash. 1991) (en banc)

I. Issue

Whether D is strictly liable for damages caused by fireworks displays.

II. Fact

During the fireworks display, one of the 5-inch mortars was knocked into a horizontal position.  From this position an aerial shell inside was ignited and discharged.  The shell flew 500 feet in a trajectory parallel to the earth and exploded near the crowd of onlookers.  P were injured by the explosion.

III. Reasoning

1. Fireworks Displays as Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Section 519 of the Restatement provides that any party carrying on an "abnormally dangerous activity" is strictly liable for ensuing damages.  Section 520 of the Restatement lists six factors that are to be considered in determining whether an activity is "abnormally dangerous."  Among them, the fireworks displays satisfy (a), (b), (c), and (d): 

(a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;(b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will great;(c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;(d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage.

We therefore hold that conducting public fireworks displays is an abnormally dangerous activity justifying the imposition of strict liability.

2. Public Policy and Strict Liability for Fireworks Displays

All evidence was destroyed as to what caused the misfire of the shell that injured P.  Therefore, the problem of proof this case presents for the plaintiffs also supports imposing strict liability on D.

3. Statutory Strict Liability for Fireworks

RCW 70.77.285, which mandates insurance coverage to pay for all damages resulting from fireworks displays, imposes statutory strict liability.  The court in Beeler held that the language of the statute clearly established strict liability for the owner of the dog.  Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the statute as mandating coverage of all damages caused by fireworks displays, regardless of whether those damages were caused by negligence of D.

4. Possible Negligent Manufacture as an Intervening Force

Section 522 of the Restatement provides that:

One carrying on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for the resulting harm although it is caused by the unexpectable(a) innocent, negligent or reckless conduct of a third person....

We hold that intervening acts of third persons serve to relieve the D from strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only if those acts were unforeseeable in relation to the extraordinary risk created by the activity.  In the present case, negligence on the part of the fireworks manufacturer is readily foreseeable in relation to the extraordinary risk created by conducting a public fireworks display.
IV. Holding
We hold that D is strictly liable for all damages suffered as a result of the July 1987 fireworks display.