Klein v. Pyrodyne Corporation

Issue

Is Pyrodyne strictly liable? In order an activity to be categorized as strictly liable, it has to consider six factors: (1) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others; (2) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; (3) inability to eliminate the risk by exercise of reasonable care; (4) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; (5) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and (6) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.

Plantiff

Klien

Defendant

Pyrodyne Corp

Decision

Pyrodyne Corporation is strictly liable for all damages suffered as a result of the July 1987 fireworks display. Detonating fireworks displays constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity warranting strict liability. This establishes the standard of strict liability for pyrotechnicians.

Facts

Pyrodyne contracted to conduct the fireworks display at the Western Washington State Fairgrounds in July 4, 1987. During the fireworks display, one of the 5-inch mortars was knocked over and the shell ignited and discharged, flying five hundred feet parallel to the earth. It exploded near the crowd of onlookers. The explosion injured Danny and Marion Klein. Mr. Klein suffered facial burns and serious injuries to his eyes. The parties provided conflicting explanations for the improper discharge, and because all the evidence had exploded, there was no means of proving the cause of misfire. The Kleins brought suit against Pyrodyne under the theory of strict liability for participating in abnormally dangerous activity.

Reason

Setting of public fireworks displays four of the six conditions under the Restatement test. It is an abnormal activity because it is not "of common usage" and it presents a high risk of serious bodily injury or property damage.