Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.
117 Wash. 2d 1, 810 P.2d 917 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public display of fireworks is an abnormally dangerous activity that subjects the operator to strict liability for any resulting harm. Additionally, a statute requiring pyrotechnicians to obtain insurance for 'all damages' caused by a display establishes a standard of strict liability independent of the common law.
Facts:
- Pyrodyne Corporation contracted to procure, set up, and discharge a public fireworks display at the Western Washington State Fairgrounds on July 4, 1987.
- All operators of the fireworks display were Pyrodyne employees acting within the scope of their employment.
- During the display, a 5-inch mortar was knocked into a horizontal position.
- An aerial shell inside the horizontal mortar ignited and flew 500 feet parallel to the ground.
- The shell exploded near the crowd of onlookers.
- Danny and Marion Klein were injured by the explosion, with Mr. Klein suffering burns and serious eye injuries.
- The explosion destroyed all evidence, making it impossible to definitively prove the cause of the misfire.
Procedural Posture:
- Danny and Marion Klein sued Pyrodyne Corporation in trial court under theories of products liability and strict liability.
- Pyrodyne filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Pyrodyne on the products liability claim but denied it on the strict liability claim.
- The trial court then granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Kleins on the issue of liability, holding Pyrodyne was strictly liable.
- Pyrodyne, as appellant, appealed the trial court's strict liability ruling to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a pyrotechnics company that conducts public fireworks displays strictly liable for injuries caused by the display?
Opinions:
Majority - Guy, J.
Yes, a pyrotechnics company is strictly liable for injuries caused by a public fireworks display. The court held that such displays are an abnormally dangerous activity, justifying the imposition of strict liability. The court applied the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and found that fireworks displays involve a high degree of risk of great harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable care, and they are not a matter of common usage. The court also held that a state statute, RCW 70.77.285, which requires pyrotechnicians to carry insurance for 'all damages to persons or property resulting from' the display, independently establishes a strict liability standard. Finally, the court ruled that the foreseeable negligence of a third-party manufacturer is not a superseding cause that would relieve the pyrotechnician of strict liability.
Concurring - Dolliver, J.
Yes, the company is strictly liable, but this conclusion should be based solely on the statute, not the common law doctrine of abnormally dangerous activities. The plain language of RCW 70.77.285 is decisive in establishing strict liability. The majority's analysis under the Restatement is unnecessary and flawed because the extensive legislative regulation of fireworks is intended to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, and the common 'activity' is viewing fireworks, which is a matter of common usage. The comprehensive statutory scheme has abrogated, or replaced, the common law in this specific area, so the court should not have applied the Restatement test at all.
Analysis:
This case establishes in Washington that public fireworks displays are an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. By formally adopting and applying the Restatement's six-factor test to this context, the court provides a clear precedent for future cases involving high-risk activities. The decision also sets an important precedent regarding intervening causes in strict liability cases, holding that foreseeable negligence by a third party (like a manufacturer) does not absolve the operator of liability. This reinforces the policy of placing the financial burden of accidents from ultra-hazardous activities on those who profit from them.
