Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God

Court of Appeals of Maryland
446 Md. 543 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A lawful fireworks display conducted in compliance with a comprehensive statutory and permitting scheme is not an abnormally dangerous activity that warrants the imposition of strict liability.

Facts:

Andrew David Toms operated a dairy farm in Frederick County, Maryland, with a herd of approximately 90 cattle.
Calvary Assembly of God, Inc. hired Zambelli Fireworks Manufacturing Co. to conduct a fireworks display on property adjacent to Toms' farm.
Zambelli obtained a permit from the State Fire Marshal after an inspection, which approved the firing location and established a safety radius of at least 250 feet, which Zambelli voluntarily extended to 300 feet.
On September 9, 2012, Zambelli's employee, Kristopher Lindberg, conducted the 15-minute fireworks display, discharging 250 shells.
The event was supervised by a Senior Deputy Fire Marshal and proceeded without any misfires, malfunctions, or debris falling on Toms' property.
Toms’ barn, where his cattle were located, was situated at least 300 feet away from the firing site, outside the established safety radius.
Toms alleged that the loud noise from the fireworks startled his cattle, causing a stampede inside the barn which resulted in the death of four cows and property damage.

Procedural Posture:

Andrew David Toms filed suit against Calvary Assembly of God, Inc. and Zambelli Fireworks in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Frederick County, alleging negligence, nuisance, and strict liability.
Following a bench trial, the District Court, as the court of first instance, entered judgment in favor of the defendants (respondents).
Toms (appellant) appealed the decision to the Circuit Court for Frederick County, an intermediate appellate court for this type of case.
The Circuit Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
Toms (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the doctrine of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity apply to the noise emanating from a lawful fireworks display that causes harm to nearby livestock?

Opinions:

Majority - Greene, J.

No. The doctrine of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity does not apply to a lawfully conducted fireworks display. The court applied the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and found that the factors weighed against imposing strict liability. The court reasoned that the comprehensive statutory scheme regulating fireworks in Maryland, which requires permits, site inspections, supervision by a fire marshal, and a safety radius, significantly reduces the high degree of risk and the likelihood of great harm. Because the risks can be managed with reasonable care, the activity is not one where the risk is unable to be eliminated. Furthermore, the court defined 'common usage' broadly to include spectators, concluding that public fireworks displays are a matter of common usage and have a social value that outweighs their regulated dangers. Critically, because the respondents obtained a permit and complied with all regulations, the activity was not 'inappropriate' for the location, which the court identified as the most crucial factor.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the application of the abnormally dangerous activity doctrine in Maryland, particularly for activities heavily regulated by the state. It establishes that compliance with a comprehensive permitting and safety scheme serves as strong evidence that an activity is not abnormally dangerous, thereby shielding defendants from strict liability. The ruling effectively shifts the burden to plaintiffs to prove negligence in cases involving harm from regulated activities, rather than relying on the activity's inherent risk. This holding demonstrates judicial deference to the legislature's role in balancing public safety and the social utility of potentially hazardous activities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature