This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The plaintiffs are Manual Anthony Cadena, Larisa Cadena, Andres Cadena, Marcella Garcia, Dale Baikauskas, and Christopher Baikauskas. Chicago Fireworks (D), who is not a party to this appeal, conducted a Fourth of July fireworks display at Bloom Township High School in D. D's administrator, Enrico Doggett (Doggett), was in charge of coordinating all activities surrounding the fireworks display. Chicago Fireworks (D) was responsible for putting on the display on July 3, 1991, and had been responsible for the display from 1976 to 1992. Doggett had been involved in the City's Fourth of July fireworks event in his capacity as the City's administrator since 1975. Doggett's duties included ensuring that, because of the large crowds estimated at between 12,000 and 15,000, the police were on the site for security, and fire department personnel and emergency vehicles were on the site in case of an accident. Doggett was also in charge of overseeing food vendors, a petting zoo, rides for children in attendance, and entertainers. Doggett coordinated his activities with the Fire and Police Departments. During the fireworks display, one of the fireworks misfired and landed in the crowd, injuring Ps. Ps filed a complaint against Chicago Fireworks (D), alleging that it was negligent in firing the fireworks in such a manner as to cause the fireworks to explode near Ps, failure to properly protect the spectators, and failure to warn the spectators of the danger that portions of the fireworks would fall into the spectators. D was eventually included in the suit for being negligent and acting in a wilful and wanton manner in designating a spectator viewing area too close to the point of ignition of the fireworks display and in placing barricades too close to the ignition area of the fireworks display. Eventually, Ps alleged that Chicago Fireworks (D) was liable under strict liability and products liability, respectively, in using an unreasonably dangerous and defective firework. D moved to dismiss the complaint. D argued in part that the complaint failed to allege that D was liable under an 'ultrahazardous activity' theory; rather, their complaint merely alleged that the City was negligent and engaged in wilful and wanton conduct. Ps maintained that there is no immunity for injuries caused by an inherently and abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous activity. Ps argued that D was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity and was therefore strictly liable for any injuries caused. D contended that case law did not support Ps' argument that the use of fireworks was an ultrahazardous activity; and it did not participate in any ultrahazardous activity because it merely sponsored the fireworks display. From prior case law, the court ruled that D was immune from liability for failure to provide adequate fire protection and service and dismissed D. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.