The plaintiff was injured on the Fourth of July when he was struck in the forehead by debris from an illegal fireworks show on the defendants' property. He filed suit and alleged in count two of his complaint that the defendants were strictly liable for his injuries because an illegal fireworks display is an ultrahazardous activity. Defendants filed a motion to strike this count. The issue for the Court was whether, in Connecticut, an unlawful fireworks display is considered an abnormally dangerous activity for which the defendants were strictly liable.

To answer this question, the Court looked to the factors described in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which include the degree of risk, the likelihood that harm will result, whether the risk can be eliminated with reasonable care, how appropriate and common the activity is, and whether the activity's value outweighs its risk. The Court had no trouble finding that illegal fireworks, which are not protected by statutory safeguards, pose a high degree of risk and a high likelihood of injury, since "fireworks are, by definition, explosive devices" and "an unavoidable risk remains even in the case of a lawful fireworks display." The fact that such displays are common carried no weight with the Court. "It would be anomalous for the law to condone common illegal activity simply because it is common."

The Court found that the plaintiff had appropriately stated a strict liability claim and denied the defendants' motion to strike. Lipka v. DiLungo, 2000 WL 295355 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000).