Danny Klein & Marion Klein vs Pyrodyne Corporation
Citation: 117 Wash. 2d 1
Jurisdiction : United States of America
Plaintiffs: Danny Klein, Marion Klein
Defendant: Pyrodyne Corporation
Facts :
The defendant, Pyrodyne Corporation, had a contract to conduct a public display of fireworks at the Western Washington State Fairgrounds in Puyallup, Washington, on July 4, 1987. All the pyrotechnic operators working in the event were employees of Pyrodyne Corp., acting in the course of their employment. Pyrodyne had purchased a $1 million insurance policy to cover any injury to body or property as per the requirement of section 70.77.285 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 70.77.285). During the display, a 5-inch mortar got knocked into a horizontal position, discharging a shell towards a group of spectators. The Klein brothers, being present in that group of spectators, had suffered burnt clothes, facial burns and a serious eye injury. The Klein brothers sued Pyrodyne, claiming strict liability for participating in an abnormally dangerous activity.
Arguments :
Arguments of the Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs alleged that Pyrodyne had incorrectly set up the mortar, which could not be proved due to the evidence being destroyed by the explosion. They also alleged that Pyrodyne had failed to provide a diagram of the surroundings to the local government and had failed to maintain proper crowd control and a safe distance. It was contended that strict liability was the appropriate standard of culpability as the actions of Pyrodyne were abnormally dangerous.
Arguments of the Defendant:
Pyrodyne claimed that a 5-inch shell had detonated without leaving its tube, which caused the other mortar to get knocked over and fire its shell horizontally. The defendant alleged that this was caused due to the negligence of the manufacturer, and thus, Pyrodyne had no liability. It was also argued that adhering to the strict regulations could eliminate the high risks, and thus, the fireworks display was not abnormally dangerous. Rather, it was a matter of common usage for celebrating the 4th of July (Independence Day of the USA).
Issues :
1. Whether conducting fireworks displays can be considered abnormally dangerous.
2. Whether abiding by the regulations is enough to eliminate the high risks involved in a fireworks display.
3. Whether public fireworks can be considered a matter of common usage.
4. Whether the intervention of the third party (manufacturer) would relieve the defendant from strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Decisions :
The Supreme Court of Washington, by referring to the legal treatise, The Restatement (Second) of Torts, stated 6 factors to be considered to determine whether an act is abnormally dangerous or not. they are:
(a) High degree of risk of causing harm to the person, land or chattel of others;
(b) Likelihood that the resulting harm will be great;
(c) Inability to eliminate the risk despite exercising reasonable care;
(d) Extent to which the act is not a matter of common usage;
(e) Inappropriateness of the act to the place where it was carried out;
(f) Extent to which the value of the act to the community is outweighed by its dangers.
The Court, in its majority decision, found the existence of the elements (a), (b), and (c) in the case of a fireworks display. The dangers of fireworks were evident from the rigorous administrative regulations which the pyrotechnicians ought to comply with. The Court recognized that abiding by the regulations could reduce the high risk, but did not agree that the risks could be eliminated. The Court also decided that the activity was not a matter of common usage in accordance with element (d), as very few people participated in the action of setting off the fireworks. Thus, finding four out of the six elements, the majority of the Bench found the act of setting off fireworks to be abnormally dangerous.
The Court further contended that the requirement of insurance coverage before fireworks display mandated by RCW 70.77.285 put strict liability on the defendant. It was held that the intervention of a third party could relieve the defendant from strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only if such intervention was not foreseeable in relation to the extraordinary risk. The fact that the manufacturer could be negligent was considered readily foreseeable in relation to the risks of a fireworks display. Thus, the majority decision held Pyrodyne Corporation strictly liable for the damage caused.
Relevant Legal Principle :
Tort of Strict Liability: The tort of strict liability holds the defendant liable regardless of any precautionary measures which he might have undertaken. A defendant may be held strictly liable in a tort suit in the presence of the following –
1. object was brought in from outside and kept on the land by the defendant.
2. The purpose of keeping the object does not fall under the natural use of the land.
3. The object is likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
4. The object escapes and subsequently causes harm.
The tort of strict liability was developed in the case Rylands v Fletcher (1868).
Relevant Laws :
- Revised Code of Washington (USA)
- Section : 70.77.285
Author :
1. S.M. Monzur Morshed
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
