$810$ P$\mathrm{.}2$d $917($Supreme Court of Washington $1991)$

Pyrodyne Corporation $($Pyrodyne$)$ Is a licensed flreworks display company that contracted to display fireworks at the Western Washington State Fairgrounds in Puyallup, Washington, on July $4,1987.$ During the fireworks display, one of the mortar launchers discharged a rocket on a horizontal trajectory parallel to the earth. The rocket exploded near a crowd of onlookers, Including Danny Kleln. Klein's clothing was set on fire, and he suffered faclal burns and serious injury to his eyes. Klein sued Pyrodyne for

strict llability to recover for his injurles. Pyrodyne asserted that the Chinese manufacturer of the fireworks was negligent in producing the rocket and therefore Pyrodyne should not be held liable. The trial court applied the doctrine of strict liability and held in favor of Klein. Pyrodyne appealed.Section $519$ of the Restatement $($Second$)$ of Torts provides that any party carrying on an "abnormally dangerous activity" Is strictly llable for ensuing damages. The public display of fireworks fits this definition. The court stated: "Any time a person Ignites rockets with the intention of sending them aloft to explode in the presence of large crowds of people, a high risk of serious personal injury or property damage is created. That risk arises because of the possibility that a rocket will malfunction or be misdirected." Pyrodyne argued that its llability was cut off by the Chinese manufacturer's

negligence. The court rejected this argument, stating, "Even if negligence may properly be regarded as an Intervening cause, It cannot function to relleve Pyrodyne from strict liability."The Washington Supreme Court held that the public display of fireworks is an abnormally dangerous activity that warrants the imposition of strict Ilability.Affirmed.

Case Questions

Why would certain activities be deemed ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous so that strict llability is imposed?

If the activitles are known to be abnormally dangerous, did Klein assume the risk?

Assume that the fireworks were negligently manufactured In China. Should Klein's only remedy be against the Chinese company, as Pyrodyne argues? Why or why not?