Pullen v. West

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an individual who lit fireworks while a guest at an Independence Day party was a participant in an abnormally dangerous activity and therefore barred from recovery on a strict liability theory
• concluding negligence per se was inapplicable where the legislature did not intend to establish a private cause of action for violations of the statute
• explaining that where a statute creates criminal or administrative remedies for violations, courts should not infer intent to also create a civil provide right of action
• noting jury likely lacks common knowledge or experience to discern industry standards or practices pertaining to commercial fireworks shows
• holding defense is viable but rejecting on facts because no employer-employee relationship
• negligence per se requires proof defendant violated statute, that violation caused plaintiff's damages, and that Legislature intended individual right of action for injury arising out of violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).