Accidents Fireworks Display-Legal

Fireworks Accident
Brings Lawsuit

-- Two local families are suing the town of Syracuse for injuries their children suffered during a July 4 fireworks display at a town park. A 5-year-old suffered first degree burns to his neck when a ground display exploded unexpectedly and shot into the crowd gathered to watch the fireworks. A 2-year-old suffered a small cut beneath his eye, minor burns and a possible ruptured eardrum during the incident. They are claiming that the town “was negligent in its capacity as the authority to maintain the Syracuse beach and park,” that it “breached its duty to provide a safe environment for the patrons visiting” and failed “to maintain a safe distance between the fireworks launch site and the spectators.” The families were sitting behind the yellow tape that cordoned off the launch site at the time of the incident. The company that produced the fireworks show is not named in the lawsuit. The company has been under scrutiny in several states because of other such accidents, including one July 3 in Alton, Ill., in which three workers were killed when an explosion occurred on a river barge from which fireworks were being launched. Both cases were filed last week. A specific settlement amount is not noted, but the families are asking for “sufficient” compensation and for court costs. Both lawsuits also ask for a trial by jury.

Glouco boy hurt in fireworks explosion
awarded $1.6M

2003 -- A Gloucester County jury awarded $1.6 million to a Woodbury Heights boy who lost most of his left hand in a 1995 fireworks explosion. The jury decided $896,000, or 56 percent of the judgment awarded to the boy, should be paid by Deptford Township, which hosted a May 1995 fireworks display at Fasola Park in the township. The boy, then 10, found an unexploded fireworks device in the park after the show that he took home and attempted to light six weeks later, according to testimony at the two- week trial. The explosion, more than two hundred times as powerful as blasts from firecrackers sold to consumers, left the boy with only his little finger and part of his thumb on his left hand, said his lawyer. Fireworks by a Vineland company, conducted the fireworks show for Deptford and was a defendant in the boy's lawsuit. The Vineland company previously settled with his client for an undisclosed amount. The verdict "was a clear signal to others conducting these displays that dangerous explosives can't be left behind." Deptford's lawyer, said still to be resolved are township claims against the Vineland company's insurer, which had issued a $1 million surety bond covering the fireworks show. Deptford contends the Vineland company's settlement "was made in bad faith" because it did not include the township. Witnesses in the trial included Deptford fire marshal, who testified he was unaware of Deptford's contractual requirement with the Vineland company to conduct a "first light" inspection of the grounds around the fireworks show the next day. the Vineland company checked the area immediately after the nighttime show. The boy testified he found the six-inch long, three- quarter-inch round aerial fireworks device on a basketball court. He hid it at home for six weeks before lighting it outdoors at a friend's house, he said. The jury determined the boy was 11 percent responsible for his injuries.

Five people Drowned
Relatives Brings Lawsuit

-- Relatives of five people who drowned when a pleasure boat capsized as it headed for a fireworks display in Vancouver's English Bay are suing the craft's U.S. owner and operator, claiming he lacked training and experience. Statements of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court allege that the man was unfamiliar with boats when the bought the 12-metre Bayliner. He did not speak or write English and was reliant on his wife to read and translate any relevant marine manuals, the suit said. The boat struck a submerged section of the 274-metre towline between the tug and the 2,700-tonne barge. A Transportation Safety Board report found that the boat, fouled its propeller on the towline, then was struck by the oncoming barge and capsized. Of the 14 people on board, only one, a small child, was wearing a life jacket. Nine people, were rescued. Plaintiffs include the children of two drowning victims of West Vancouver. The suit said the man lacked the training or skills to operate the boat, was driving the boat too fast, failed to maintain a proper lookout and headed into danger by attempting to run over the towline between a tug and its tow. A case management judge is to consolidate the various claims and counter claims in one hearing. Other defendants include the Port Authority, which approved the fireworks competition, the fireworks team that won the international pyrotechnics competition, and the crew of the tug. In a statement of defence, filed on its own behalf and that of tug skipper and mate, the accident occurred because of the boat owners negligence.

Ex-Execs Go to Prison

2004 -- Three former fireworks executives were sentenced to federal prison Friday on charges stemming from explosions that killed two plant workers and injured five at a suburban St. Louis fireworks plant.

Two people were each ordered to spend 13 months in prison, followed by two years of probation. The couple pleaded guilty in May admitting they conspired to illegally transport hazardous wastes and illegally store explosives. They were also fined $3,000 each.

Three explosions dating to 1999 killed two workers and injured five others at the Jefferson County plant, which made fireworks for two companies. None of the executives was accused in the deaths or injuries.

A co-defendant executive, was sentenced to two months in prison, two months of home confinement and fined $2,000. He pleaded guilty in May to lying to federal investigators about the blast.

The companies were placed on probation and fined a total of $80,000. One company also agreed to give up its license as an explosives maker and pay $100,000 to settle Labor Department (news - web sites) civil claims against it.

One company pleaded guilty months ago to one count of illegally transporting hazardous wastes.

Marysville
City rejects fireworks claims
Girl, four others seek damages for Fourth of July injuries.

City officials have rejected nearly $10 million in personal-injury claims from a Fourth of July fireworks incident that took the leg of a 14-year-old girl and injured others, a city spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Attorneys for Jessica Jo-Lynn Velez of Marysville informed the city that she was seeking about $2 million for present and anticipated medical expenses, plus general damages for a total of about $9 million.

Four others - Alan Murdock, Traci Murdock, Febious Velez and Valerie Velez - also notified the city they each wanted $100,000 for damages arising from the incident, according to a separate claim filed with the city.

Filing a damages claim is the first step in filing a lawsuit against the city. The City Council received the two claims Sept. 7 but revealed its decision only recently.

The teen's claim names Fred May, owner of Wizard Fireworks and event producer Boom Boom Production, and event sponsors the Appeal-Democrat newspaper and Pepsi Co.

Her claim also names as responsible parties the Marysville City Fire Department, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the state of California.

The incident occurred during the pyrotechnics display at Lake Ellis in downtown Marysviile. The fireworks show has been a town ritual for at least three decades.

Jessica Velez alleges that she lost her leg as the result of a misfired fireworks shell. She and another unnamed teenage girl were admitted to the Rideout Hospital intensive care unit as a result of the incident. The hospital treated and released at least a dozen others in the same event.

The girl's four-page claim alleges that video and photographic evidence shows that the fireworks mortars were not properly set up for the annual event, which draws thousands of spectators.

The results of a state fire marshal's investigation into the incident are not expected to be released until January.

Marysville
Civil lawsuit is moving forward.

2005 -- Almost nine months after an explosion at a fireworks display in a crowded Marysville park, a civil lawsuit is moving forward.

Jessica Velez, 14, lost part of her leg when something exploded in the crowd at the city's 4th of July fireworks show at Lake Ellis. She had to have part of the leg amputated. She has been learning to walk with a prosthetic since November.

"I'm feeling better since when if first happened," Jessica Velez said. "I'm just healing. And everything seems to be going smoothly except the case."

In November, Marysville city leaders rejected a $10 million personal injury claim from the Velez family. Now, even though a report on the incident has not been completed, the family is going forward with a civil lawsuit in the case.

Velez was in court with her family Monday in connection with the civil lawsuit, which has been filed against the company that put on the show, the show's sponsor, the city of Marysville and the California Department of Forestry.

The CDF's investigation into the incident is not yet finished.

"It has been nine months since the accident. There's absolutely no excuse for that report not being done," said Velez attorney Bert Ithurburn.

CDF officials said that the case is still under investigation, and there's a "strong possibility" the report will be released in the next six weeks, before the next court date.

The family's lawsuit has not specified damages.

Sparks fly over banquet hall blaze

Lawyer -- Careless preparation by a licensed firework display operator resulted in a $140,000 settlement. Our client agreed to provide table-top displays at a wedding banquet. Remote-controlled sparklers were concealed on each table in floral centrepieces. When the remote trigger was fired, all the centrepieces were designed to ignite at the same time. Unfortunately the operator forgot to disarm three spare units he had stored in an adjacent storage area. When the remote-controlled devices were set off, the spare units also ignited, starting a fire in the storage room. The banquet hall filled with smoke, and the wedding guests were quickly and safely evacuated. The fire also knocked out an adjacent electrical panel for the kitchen, so the caterer was unable to complete the meal. The wedding was ruined. The banquet hall lease agreement expressly prohibited the use of candles or indoor fireworks. Damage to the banquet hall, the caterer’s lost revenue and compensation to the bride and her family cost $132,972 and legal expenses were almost $8,000.

Fireworks widow
to collect $1.35 million

-- The Supreme Court ruled that a Central Ohio widow can collect the $1.35 million settlement she agreed to accept for her husband's death in a fireworks accident nearly six years ago. The man died after being hit by shrapnel as he watched a July 4 display with his family in Reynoldsburg's Huber Park. His wife filed a wrongful death suit against the city, also naming Truro Township - which inspected the site beforehand - as a defendant

Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment claiming sovereign immunity. A motion for summary judgment asks the court to rule without a trial. The request is based on the assertion that party who filed the motion should win the case "as a matter of law," or because the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict in favor of the other party.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity basically says that the government cannot be sued for negligence. Ohio statutes extend the protection to political subdivisions with few exceptions.

While their motions for summary judgments were pending, the city of Reynoldsburg and Truro Township reached a settlement agreement. Reynoldsburg agreed to pay her $750,000 and Truro Township agreed to pay her $600,000 if the motions failed. The trial court later denied both motions.

The city and township appealed, and the 10th District Court of Appeals reversed the common pleas court and granted summary judgments. The appeals court held that Reynoldsburg was immune from the suit and that Truro Township was not liable because it did not have administrative jurisdiction over Huber Park.

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court. Writing for the majority, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer explained that sponsoring a fireworks display is not a governmental function that would automatically entitle Reynoldsburg to immunity under the law. Furthermore, the city could be held liable for Ryll's death if it were determined that the city acted negligently. "There is evidence in the record that Reynoldsburg designated a [spectator] area closer to the discharge area than called for by [National Fire Protection Association] standards…We conclude there are factual issues that cannot be resolved as a matter of law. Therefore, summary judgment cannot be proper," Justice Pfeifer wrote.

Furthermore, he explained, summary judgment in favor of Truro Township was inappropriate "because Huber Park is not as a matter of law [outside] Truro Township."

"Our reading of the record reveals that Reynoldsburg residents vote for Truro Township trustees and that a former…trustee believes Huber Park to be located within Truro Township. Further, [we believe] that ownership of the park is not relevant."

"The record reveals that Truro Township inspected the premises prior to installation [of the fireworks]. Satisfying this statutory requirement does not necessarily relieve Truro Township from liability for" failure to keep Huber Park free from nuisance, Pfeifer wrote.

"Truro Township knew there was going to be a fireworks display and knew that fireworks displays are potentially lethal. Nothing in the record indicates that Truro Township attempted to determine whether the safety rules required by [statute] were followed."

"We cannot say as a matter of law that Truro Township kept Huber Park free from nuisance. Therefore, summary judgment cannot be proper with respect to nuisance," Pfeifer wrote.

Justice Andrew Douglas wrote a separate concurring opinion asserting that political subdivisions are not entitled to the immunity from liability.

"I believe it to be a proper conclusion that a political subdivision is not entitled to immunity based upon the right to remedy provision of the first sentence of Section 16, Article I [of the Ohio Constitution]," Justice Douglas wrote.

"Additionally, I believe that [Ohio's political subdivision immunity law] violates the right to trial by jury provided for by Section 5, Article I [of the] Ohio Constitution," Justice Douglas wrote.

Justice Deborah Cook wrote in a dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court's consideration of the case was improper because orders denying motions for summary judgment cannot be appealed. The case should have been remanded to the trial court, she said.

"Because there was never a final appealable order rendered by the trial court in this case, this court is without jurisdiction to decide the merits of the cause."

Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton joined Justice Cook's decision.

Cash settlement reached
in fireworks tragedy

-- The parents of a 12-year-old girl of Broadview Heights have reached a cash settlement in their lawsuit with a fireworks company over the Fourth of July fireworks accident that led to their daughter's death. This comes as the Fire Marshal's Office plans to conduct a public hearing Friday to consider more stringent requirements for securing fireworks racks. While not disclosing the amount of the cash settlement, the girls mother said no remuneration -- no matter how great -- would ever suffice. "The loss was so great that nothing of monetary value will ever be enough to make up for the loss of my daughter." The girl was fatally injured when an errant 5-inch rocket in the fireworks display hit her in the head as she, her family and friends were viewing the holiday display in Elmwood Park. A state fire marshal's investigation found that the mortar rack was secured inadequately with plastic ties, and this may have contributed to the girl's death after the rack tipped over. As a part of the settlement, the company, agreed not to appeal the state's revocation of his Ohio display license for at least two years. After two years, he could re-apply for a permit. In a carefully worded prepared statement, the companys attorney, said, "The principals and the employees are devastated by the tragic accident that occurred in Independence on July 2, 1998. Our desire has been to bring about a speedy and satisfactory resolution of this matter." He went on to say it was the firm's hope that giving up the license and offering a monetary settlement would help close the doors on the unfortunate accident. "For more than 20 years, the company has provided safe, enjoyable fireworks displays to hundreds of thousands of people without serious incident," concluding, "Our heart goes out in deep sympathy and we continue to pray for the family." But while the company wants to put the tragedy behind it, "There's never going to be closure to my daughter's death." She said her main goal now is to ensure a similar fireworks accident never happens again. She has been contacting state lawmakers and other officials who are in positions where they can enact legislation calling for more stringent safety precautions -- including requiring that all mortar stands be placed in trenches. "Maybe trenching isn't the complete answer, but at least it's a start." Meanwhile, the fire marshal's office has scheduled a public hearing to discuss imposing a specific ban on the use of plastic ties for securing fireworks racks. The existing state code is not specific regarding what types of straps must be used.

Families of stampede victims
sue for 850 mil. yen

-- Japan People who lost relatives in a stampede after a fireworks display last year have demanded local governments pay damages for the fatalities caused by "lax" security plans in a suit filed. The eight families, who lost nine loved ones, said they believed that the Police, the City and the security firm were negligent in their security measures and that they wanted to make it clear that the three entities were responsible for the accident. "Insufficient crowd security plans of the three, the police in particular, caused the accident," the suit filed with the District Court read. On July 21, last year, 11 people, eight of them children, were crushed to death and nearly 250 spectators were injured when they fell like dominoes on a 100-meter-long walkway connecting a local beach and train station. The plaintiffs said in the suit that the police, city officials and security employees could have anticipated such an accident after the confusion caused by visitors to a similar event the previous year. Despite this, the police, the city and the security company failed to plan effective security measures for the fireworks day, leading to the stampede, said the suit. It demands the three pay some 850 million yen in compensation. The bereaved families said that under law police are expected to guard and protect crowds from accidents during events visited by large numbers of people, yet the police did not even dispatch officers to the walkway. "We cannot find any trace that the police fulfilled their duties," the suit concluded. The police sent reports on five officers, six city officials and a security company executive, all involved in security for the fireworks, to prosecutors on charges of professional negligence resulting in death. The District Public Prosecutors Office is investigating the case with an eye to indict them.

Top cops face negligence
over fireworks fiasco

-- Hyogo Prefectural Police are poised to send investigation reports to prosecutors, accusing a former police chief and others of negligence over an accident during a fireworks event in which 11 spectators were killed. The police will take the action against 12 people, including a former Police Chief, a former head of the Municipal Government section responsible for organizing the event and a security company official. This will be the first time that police officers have been accused of negligence in an accident involving crowds since an accident at a shrine in Yahiko, Niigata Prefecture, in 1956. Officials of the three entities -- police, the municipal government and the security company should have predicted the accident. Investigators noted that officials of the three were aware of large crowds that attended similar events, such a new millennium count-down held at the same location at the end of 1999. The fatal accident occurred on the 100-meter-long bridge. Eleven people were crushed to death and about 250 others were injured after they fell like dominoes on the crowded bridge after watching the fireworks show. All of the nine children crushed to death on the footbridge were aged under 10, while the two other victims were women in their 70s.

Wrongful death of a "shooter"

-- The Fourth District Court of Appeal interpreted an insurance policy as providing coverage for the wrongful death of a "shooter" killed in a Fourth of July fireworks demonstration, notwithstanding an exclusion in the policy for coverage of "any kind ... arising out of claims made by shooters."

The insurer attempted to limit its exposure by drafting a "Shooters Endorsement - Fireworks" with the intention of excluding injuries or deaths caused by this dangerous activity. Several employees of a company called Pyrotechnic, involved in the fireworks display, were injured and one killed during a fireworks mishap. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer based on the exclusion in question for all injuries and the death.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the judgment regarding the wrongful death, holding that the provision did not apply to wrongful death claims brought by the personal representative of a shooter. Under the wrongful death statute, any claim which could have been made by the shooter was extinguished by his death. A wrongful death action can be brought only by the decedent's statutory survivors. Because the action was made by the statutory survivors, not a shooter, the Fourth District reasoned that the exclusion (excluding claims "made by shooters") was inapplicable.

The Court noted that it would have been a simple matter for the insurance company to have excluded claims arising out of injuries or deaths to shooters, whether brought by the shooters or their statutory survivors.

Although the case appears to provide an absurd result of creating insurance coverage for precisely what the insurer attempt to exclude, the Court reasoned that it was bound to construe insurance policies by giving the words in the policy their "ordinary and common usage.".

Sues fireworks company
for deadly explosion

-- The owner of a truck-renting firm is suing a St. Louis-area fireworks company, alleging its official lied when he said the vehicle would be used to move furniture. The truck instead was hauling fireworks that exploded and killed five people in July. Terry Krantz, owner of the Naples-based Florida Truck Rentals, is suing the fireworks company, for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud and breach of contract. Fireworks supervisor Ken Kinard Jr. rented a 20-foot box truck from Krantz's company July 1, a day before five men died when part of the fireworks shipment exploded as it was being unloaded for Bonita Springs' Independence Day fireworks display. The lawsuit, filed in Collier County Circuit Court, alleges that Kinard told trucking company employees that he was moving household furniture from North Naples to a friend's home in Bonita Springs - instead of disclosing that the cargo would be fireworks shipments for Fourth of July celebrations in three communities. Kinard died from injuries suffered in the explosion. Krantz said he would not have rented the truck to the company had he known it was being used to haul fireworks. "My truck was falsely rented to haul explosives, and you've seen the outcome," Krantz said. "Did you see any remains of the truck? It's a bad thing that these people had to die."Krantz seeks damages of more than $45,000 and unspecified legal fees.

"Fireworks incident leads to lawsuit" 2003

The mother of two Mississippi boys injured in a fireworks accident has sued the company that manufactured the shell. Straightforward enough: if a company holds a fireworks display, one normally expects it not to leave behind undetonated fireworks. The newspaper account, however, hides some critical details in the back of the story:

A report filed by police Sgt. stated that he was told that the boys father told them, "See if it will light." [The nine-year-old] lit the powder with a lighter.

The report said he also spoke to the father about the incident. "(the father) advised that he had seen that the boys had poured the stuff on the sea wall. He advised that he said, I wonder if that stuff will light," according to the report.

The father said that he didn't realize his statement might prompt the boys to light the explosive material.

It's one thing to hold a fireworks company responsible because unsupervised children injured themselves with their explosives--though one would expect children of a certain age to be well aware that they shouldn't be playing with lighters. But shouldn't some societal culpability rest with a parent present who not only failed to intervene to stop children playing with explosives and a lighter, but egged on reckless behavior?

Mississippi recently adopted reforms that limit the damages of a defendant that is less than 30% responsible to 50% of economic damages and the defendant's share of non-economic damages. But many other states allow a defendant who was only partially responsible to be required to bear the full share of damages if the other tortfeasors are judgment-proof under the principle of "joint and several liability."