Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 1, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed by Egan Jr. J. against a Supreme Court order that granted defendants' summary judgment motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, a Vermont resident, was camping at Roger’s Rock Campground in July 2008 when she attended a fireworks display in Ticonderoga, Essex County. The event, organized by the defendants, featured a complex setup involving fiberglass tubes and wooden racks for 1,075 shells, with a required safety radius of 420 feet based on industry standards. During the show, a six-inch shell malfunctioned, leading to an explosion that dislodged another shell, which was propelled into the crowd. The plaintiff attempted to protect her daughter and friend from the incoming shell but injured her right hand when it slipped on the grass, resulting in a torn collateral ligament that required surgery. She subsequently filed a negligence and strict products liability lawsuit against the defendants. After discovery, the defendants argued that they owed no duty to the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court agreed, dismissing the complaint entirely. The plaintiff's appeal challenges this dismissal.
Defendants were granted summary judgment on the strict products liability claim due to lack of evidence showing they manufactured, sold, or marketed the fireworks involved. However, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the negligence claim was found to be erroneous. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the injuries. The court noted that the existence and scope of duty is a legal question, considering the relationship between the parties and the foreseeability of harm.
In this case, defendants set up and ignited a large quantity of dangerous fireworks, necessitating a high degree of care to prevent injuries. Testimony indicated that while a malfunction had not been previously experienced by the defendants, such events are foreseeable in the industry. Although the plaintiff was initially positioned outside the purported safety radius, she was nonetheless within the zone of foreseeable harm as the second shell exploded close to her, causing sparks to land nearby. Additional evidence, including scorch marks and a witness report, supported the conclusion that the plaintiff was at risk during the event. Consequently, the court determined that questions of fact regarding breach and proximate cause prevent summary judgment on the negligence claim.
Defendants may be in compliance with various regulations; however, evidence indicates disorganization during the fireworks show, with technicians experiencing difficulties in detonating devices. One technician reportedly insisted that the show continue despite malfunctions. Defendants argue they could not foresee the manner of the plaintiff's injury, but the court clarifies that the plaintiff is not required to demonstrate the foreseeability of the precise circumstances of the accident to support her negligence claim. Viewing the evidence favorably for the plaintiff, the court concludes that defendants have not established that they bear no legal responsibility for the injuries. The order is modified to reverse the dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the defendants, while affirming other parts of the order. The fireworks display involved shells propelled 75 to 200 feet into the air, and although the plaintiff witnessed the first shell detonate, the debris did not affect her group. A significant explosion was recorded on video, with photographs included in the record. Pyro Engineering, Inc. and Bay Fireworks are both named defendants, with Bay Fireworks operating as a trade name for Pyro Engineering, Inc. Additionally, defendants initiated a third-party action against July 4 Ever, Inc., the supplier of some shells used in the show.
