Torts Flashcards
(8 cards)
- Fireworks As Abnormally Dangerous Activity.
The trial judge was correct in concluding that fireworks displays are not an abnormally dangerous activity and thus are not subject to strict liability. The issue is whether, even when using reasonable care, fireworks displays are likely to cause serious bodily injury and whether they are a matter of common usage.
Strict Liability
Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities. An abnormally dangerous activity is an activity that, even when using a reasonable degree of care, the activity does/is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. Also, the activity must not be a matter of common usage. Simply, the degree of harm cannot be ruled out by using reasonable care. If it is established that an activity is abnormally dangerous, both actual and proximate cause must also be shown.
Application
Here, fireworks displays are an abnormally dangerous activity. Nationally, fireworks cause about 9,000 injuries and 5 deaths each year. Evidence established at trial demonstrated that “even with careful use by experts, fireworks mortars can still misfire” and some fireworks display accidents occur “despite compliance with governmental fireworks regulations.” In other words, even when using a reasonable degree of care and complying with firework regulations, fireworks are still likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. However, fireworks are a matter of common usage. Typically, courts have held that such things like gas and oil are matters of common usage, while nuclear chemicals are not of common usage. Fireworks are used yearly for holidays and personal use by professionals and non-professionals. Thus, they are common to all individuals. Though fireworks may cause serious bodily injury or death when using reasonable care, they are matters of common usage. As such, strict liability does not apply.
The trial judge was correct in concluding that fireworks displays are not an abnormally dangerous activity.
- Negligence of Fireworks Company
The trial judge was not correct in concluding that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the conduct of the fireworks company was negligent. The issue is whether the company breached their duty of care.
Negligence
To prove a party was negligent, four elements must be proven: 1) duty to conform conduct to a standard of care; 2) breach of that duty; 3) causation, both actual and proximate; and 4) damages. Ordinarily, parties have a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. This is an objective standard. A party breaches this duty by failing to conform their conduct to the relevant standard of care. A party must actually cause the injury and proximately cause the injury. The injury must be a foreseeable consequence from the defendant’s actions. Damages must also be proven.
Application
Here, there is evidence that the fireworks company was negligent. The company had a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. The company had this duty towards foreseeable plaintiffs. The woman was foreseeable because she was within 500 feet of the launch site. The company breached this duty. Though a state statute required a “safety zone” of 500 feet from launching sites of fireworks when launched on land, the state had no such statute referring to launching fireworks from water. Though the fireworks company was not required to have a “safety zone” of 500 feet from the launching site, they should have been aware that there was a risk of injury to persons within 500 feet because of the statute regarding land launches. It was reasonably foreseeable that the woman could be injured, as she was in one of 3 locations within the 500-foot zone. The fireworks were both the actual and proximate cause of her injuries. Getting injured from flaming debris actually caused her injury and it was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. It was foreseeable that a firework could misfire as experts claim that they can, even when using care. The woman also suffered personal injury damages. Thus, the company was negligent.
The trial judge was not correct in concluding that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the conduct of the fireworks company was negligent.
- Proximate Cause of Husband’s Injuries
The trial judge was not correct in concluding that the misfiring mortar was not the proximate cause of the husband’s injuries. The issue is whether the man’s attempt to safe his wife was foreseeable.
To prove a party was negligent, four elements must be proven: 1) duty to conform conduct to a standard of care; 2) breach of that duty; 3) causation, both actual and proximate; and 4) damages. Ordinarily, parties have a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. A party’s actions are the proximate cause of an injury if the injury or intervening force was reasonably foreseeable.
Here, the husband’s injuries were reasonably foreseeable from the misfiring mortar. The misfiring mortar actually and proximately caused the injuries to the man’s wife. In his attempt to safe/help his wife, he was in a “hurry” and tripped on a rug and fell. His attempts to rescue his wife were reasonably foreseeable. Courts typically hold that danger invites rescue, and thus, injury to rescuers is reasonably foreseeable. Thus, the misfiring mortar proximately caused the man’s injury because it occurred while he was attempting to rescue his wife.
- Homeowner’s Assocation Liability
The trial judge was correct in holding that the homeowners association cannot be held liable for the fireworks company’s acts or omissions. The issue is whether they are liable under a theory of vicarious liability.
An employer may be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. An employer will be liable if the person was actually his employee and if the injury occurred in the scope of the relationship. An employer will not be liable for the acts of an independent contractor. Typically, an employer has no right to control the work or performance of an independent contractor. An employer will only be liable for the acts or omissions of an independent contractor if the independent contractor is performing an inherently dangerous activity or a nondelegable duty, or the employer has held the independent contractor out as his employee.
Here, the homeowner’s association contracted with the fireworks company to plan and manage all aspects of the fireworks display. There is no evidence to suggest that the company is an employee of the homeowners association. Instead, the company is an independent contractor. The company is deemed an independent contractor because they were charged with managing and planning the event – the homeowners association had no control over their work. The company was not performing an inherently dangerous activity (fireworks are not abnormally dangerous activities, as mentioned above) or a nondelegable duty. Thus, there is no basis to apply vicarious liability against the homeowner’s association.
The trial judge was correct in holding that the homeowner’s association cannot be held liable for the fireworks company’s acts or omissions.
