Plaintiff Deemed to Be In the Foreseeable Zone of Danger Re: a Fireworks Display

The Third Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in a case stemming from a malfunction of a fireworks display.  The malfunction caused a projectile to fly horizontally toward plaintiff who injured her arm in attempting to protect her daughter from the projectile. Supreme Court had dismissed the action as unforeseeable because the projectile travelled beyond the usual zone of danger.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty to him or her, that the defendant breached that duty and that such breach was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained … . “The existence and scope of [the] alleged tortfeasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for determination by the court” — giving due consideration to “whether the relationship of the parties is such as to give rise to a duty of care, whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm and whether the accident was within the reasonably foreseeable risks” … . Once it is determined that a particular duty exists, whether — and the extent to which — that duty was breached and whether any such breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries generally are factual issues for the trier of fact to resolve … .

Here, defendants possessed, furnished, set up and ignited “a large supply of dangerous fireworks” … and, as such, were bound to exercise “a high degree of care” in order to prevent injury to others … . As to the foreseeability of a malfunction, one of defendants’ representatives testified at his examination before trial that, although he had not experienced a “blow by” prior to the Ticonderoga show, such an event was “an occurrence in the industry,” that “the chance for a malfunction [was] obviously there” and that malfunctions can be dangerous. As to whether plaintiff was in the zone of foreseeable harm, plaintiff estimated that she was sitting approximately 700 feet from where the shells were being launched (well outside the purported safety radius) and, as noted previously, acknowledged that the debris from the first malfunctioning shell did not reach her location. Plaintiff also testified, however, that the second shell exploded “[v]ery close” to where she was sitting, causing sparks to land around her group, and one of defendants’ representatives conceded that “hot flaming debris” from this second shell was propelled into the crowd of spectators. Further, when plaintiff returned to the ball field the following day, she observed scorch marks on the grass — presumably caused by flaming debris from the detonated shell — approximately 20 feet away from where she had been sitting. Moreover, the police report prepared in this matter makes reference to a witness who claimed that the second shell exploded “15-20 feet away from the civilians sitting by Burgoyne [R]oad.” Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm … . Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in finding that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff.  Evarts v Pyro Eng’g Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02996, 3rd Dept 5-1-14