## Facts

- A fireworks company conducted a public Fourth of July display at a high school within a municipality.
- The municipality, through its administrator, coordinated municipal involvement, including crowd control and safety arrangements, and arranged for police and fire presence.
- During the display, a firework malfunctioned, exploded into the crowd, and injured multiple spectators (including minor plaintiffs).
- Plaintiffs sued the fireworks company and the municipality, alleging negligence, wilful and wanton conduct, res ipsa loquitur, and strict liability based on an ultrahazardous activity theory.
- The municipality moved for summary judgment based on immunity for police and fire protection services under 745 ILCS 10/4-102 and 5-102.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the municipality, and plaintiffs appealed as to the municipality.

## Issues

1. Whether the municipality’s planning and on-site measures for the event constituted “police protection services” and “fire protection services” under 745 ILCS 10/4-102 and 5-102, barring liability.
2. Whether asserted doctrines (special duty, discretionary/ministerial distinctions, or wilful and wanton allegations) avoid immunity under those sections.
3. Whether municipal involvement in a public fireworks display is an ultrahazardous activity that subjects the municipality to strict liability or otherwise defeats statutory immunity.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the municipality.
- The municipality’s crowd control, barricading, and related public-safety measures were police protection services within § 4-102.
- The municipality’s arrangements for fire personnel and related precautions were fire protection services within § 5-102.
- The immunities in §§ 4-102 and 5-102 barred claims framed as negligence, wilful and wanton conduct, res ipsa loquitur, or strict liability when grounded in allegedly inadequate police or fire protection.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ efforts to avoid immunity via special duty, discretionary/ministerial characterizations, and wilful and wanton allegations.
- The court also rejected strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity, concluding the fireworks display was not abnormally dangerous in this context and did not displace statutory immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Under 745 ILCS 10/4-102, a local public entity is not liable for failing to provide adequate police protection or service; crowd control and barricading at a public event fall within that category.
- Under 745 ILCS 10/5-102, a local public entity is not liable for failing to provide adequate fire protection or service; providing fire personnel and related precautions for an event fall within that category.
- When a claim challenges the adequacy of police or fire protection services, §§ 4-102 and 5-102 operate as broad immunity, not defeated by pleading theories such as res ipsa loquitur or strict liability.
- In this context, special duty and discretionary/ministerial distinctions do not create exceptions to immunity under §§ 4-102 and 5-102.
- Allegations of wilful and wanton conduct do not, by themselves, avoid immunity under §§ 4-102 and 5-102.
- A public fireworks display is not automatically treated as an abnormally dangerous activity for strict-liability purposes where risks can be reduced by reasonable care and the activity is commonly conducted with social utility.

## Conclusion

The court held that the municipality’s involvement in the fireworks event was limited to police and fire protection services protected by statutory immunity, and plaintiffs could not circumvent that immunity through special-duty theories, characterizing acts as ministerial, alleging wilful and wanton conduct, or asserting strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity.


Cadena v. Chicago Fireworks Mfg. Co., 297 Ill. App. 3d 945 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)