Facts
- Danny and Marion Klein attended a public fireworks display at the Western Washington State Fairgrounds in Puyallup, Washington, on July 4, 1987.
- Pyrodyne Corporation was hired to procure fireworks, provide operators, and conduct the display, and obtained a $1 million liability insurance policy as required by statute.
- During the show, a 5-inch mortar ended up in a horizontal position; an aerial shell discharged parallel to the ground, traveled roughly 500 feet, and exploded near the spectators.
- Mr. Klein’s clothing ignited; he suffered facial burns and serious eye injuries.
- The parties disputed causation: Pyrodyne attributed the event to an aboveground detonation that knocked over another mortar; the Kleins attributed it to improper setup by Pyrodyne’s employees.
- The Kleins sued on strict liability (abnormally dangerous activity) and products liability; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Kleins on strict liability and rejected the products-liability claim.
- Pyrodyne appealed the strict-liability ruling.
Issues
- Whether conducting a public fireworks display is an abnormally dangerous activity triggering common-law strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520.
- Whether RCW 70.77.285 independently imposes strict liability on a party hired to set up and discharge fireworks for damages resulting from a public fireworks display.
Decision
- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment imposing strict liability on Pyrodyne for injuries caused by the display.
- The court held that a public fireworks display constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity under the common law.
- The court also held that RCW 70.77.285 provides an independent basis for strict liability because it requires insurance (or a bond) covering all damages resulting from public fireworks displays.
- A concurring opinion agreed with imposing strict liability but would have rested liability solely on RCW 70.77.285 rather than the common-law abnormally dangerous activity analysis.
Legal Principles
- Whether an activity is “abnormally dangerous” for strict-liability purposes is a question of law.
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 factors guide the determination, including: high risk of harm, likelihood of great harm, inability to eliminate risk with reasonable care, uncommon usage, appropriateness of place, and whether danger outweighs community value; no factor is dispositive and not all factors must be present.
- Public fireworks displays involving explosives near crowds can meet § 520 because serious injury risks remain even with reasonable care and the activity is not ordinary common usage.
- Policy supports strict liability where innocent spectators face major proof difficulties and the operator is better positioned to spread losses through pricing and insurance.
- RCW 70.77.285’s requirement of insurance or a bond for “all damages” from a public display reflects legislative allocation of accident costs to the licensed operator.
- In strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, intervening events do not defeat causation if the harm results from the type of risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous; only a superseding cause may relieve liability.
Conclusion
The court held Pyrodyne strictly liable for injuries caused by a misfired aerial shell because a public fireworks display is an abnormally dangerous activity under the Restatement and, independently, Washington’s fireworks statute requires financial responsibility for all resulting damages, placing accident costs on the display operator rather than injured spectators.