S were doing what they were doing at their own peril

s were doing what they were doing at their own peril and would be
liable
 RULE: A person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at
his peril; and if he does not do so is answerable for all the damages which is
the natural consequence of its escape
CASE: Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp. (Wash. 1991)
 Π s were injured by a stray shell at a public fireworks exhibition
 HELD: Pyrotechnicians are strictly liable for damages caused by fireworks
displays
 Modern doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities has
come to stand for the rule that the ∆ will be liable when he damages another
by a thing or activity unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where
50

it is maintained, in the light of the character of that place and its surroundings
 § 520 of the Restatements lists six factors that are to be considered in
determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous
1. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or
chattels of others
2. Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great
3. Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care
4. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on
6. Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its
dangerous attributes
 Essential question: Whether the risk created is so unusual, either because of
its magnitude or bc of the circumstances surrounding it, as to justify the
imposition of strict liability for the harm that results from it, even though it is
carried on with all reasonable care
 Dangerousness evidenced by the elaborate scheme of administrative
regulations with which pyrotechnicians must comply
 High risks can be reduced, but not eliminated
 Not a matter of common usage
 Fairness weighs in favor of requiring pyrotechnicians to pay for injuries
 Strict liability also rests on the problem of proof  disasters caused
frequently destroy all evidence of what in fact occurred
 Intervening acts of third persons serve to relieve the ∆ from strict liability
for abnormally dangerous activities only if those acts were unforeseeable in
relation to the extraordinary risk created by the activity
o Encourages those who conduct abnormally dangerous activities to
anticipate and take precautions against the possible negligence of third
parties
 CONCURRENCE: All instrumentalities inevitably involve some degree of
risk; real issue is whether the hazard can be reduced to acceptable limits
• Strict liability on owners of wild animals for injuries caused by those animals
• Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co. (Tex. 1937): The creation of reservoirs filled with salt
water a “natural” use of land, given that in certain parts of TX one would naturally
expect to find such reservoirs, since they are a necessary part of oil exploration
• Prof. Fletcher argued that either have reciprocal risks (persons are exposing each
other to roughly similar risks of injury i.e. car driving) and non-reciprocal risks