Harrington v. Nordentoft, 2:21-cv-01182

July 4, 2020: Nordentoft purchased commercial-grade shell fireworks and set up a homemade mortar (five‑gallon buckets, PVC, sand) on property rented by Madeleine Simms (owner: Chaos Farms, LLC). No permit, no pyrotechnics certification, and instructions were not read.
John Harrington arrived, agreed to help, walked with Nordentoft to get a torch and a shell, removed the shell’s wick from packaging, placed the shell in the mortar, backed up a few feet, and signaled Nordentoft to light the fuse.
The firework exploded as Nordentoft lit it and struck Harrington’s face; Harrington lost his right eye and sued Nordentoft, Simms, and Chaos Farms for negligence and strict liability.
Simms and Chaos Farms moved for summary judgment on strict liability and on negligence claims against them; Nordentoft moved for partial summary judgment on strict liability.
The court found no abnormally dangerous activity under Wisconsin law and held that Harrington’s voluntary participation barred strict liability; it also held Harrington was more negligent than Simms and Chaos Farms as a matter of law.
Result: summary judgment granted to all defendants on strict liability; Simms and Chaos Farms granted summary judgment on negligence claims; only negligence claim against Nordentoft remains.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether setting off these fireworks was an "abnormally dangerous" activity under Wisconsin law	Harrington: commercial‑grade fireworks, lack of permit and precautions made the activity ultrahazardous	Defendants: risk could be minimized by reasonable precautions; not ultrahazardous as a matter of law	Court: Not abnormally dangerous (risk could be reduced by reasonable care)
Whether plaintiff's voluntary participation bars strict liability	Harrington: he didn’t know fireworks were commercial grade or permit required; thus should not be barred	Defendants: Restatement §523/assumption of risk bars recovery by one who knowingly takes part	Court: Harrington knowingly participated and had reason to know risk; strict liability barred
Whether Simms/Chaos Farms were negligent per se under Wis. Stat. §167.10	Harrington: defendants violated fireworks statute by allowing display on their property	Defendants: No evidence they possessed or used the fireworks, so statute does not apply to them	Court: No clear statutory violation by Simms/Chaos Farms; they are not negligent per se
Whether comparative negligence presents a triable issue as to Simms/Chaos Farms	Harrington: factual dispute (how far he backed away; who held wick) precludes summary judgment	Defendants: Harrington actively participated and was more negligent as a matter of law	Court: Harrington was more negligent as a matter of law; summary judgment for Simms and Chaos Farms

Grube v. Daun, 570 N.W.2d 851 (Wis. 1997) (frames Wisconsin test for abnormally dangerous activities using Restatement §520 factors)
Wagner v. Continental Cas. Co., 421 N.W.2d 835 (Wis. 1988) (examples of ultrahazardous activities and emphasis on risk that remains despite care)
Bennett v. Larsen Co., 348 N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1984) (pesticide spraying not ultrahazardous because risks can be reduced with reasonable care)
Fortier v. Flambeau Plastics Co., 476 N.W.2d 593 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991) (use of Restatement factors and examples of non‑ultrahazardous activities)
Skybrock v. Concrete Constr. Co., 167 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. 1969) (court may decide comparative‑negligence as a matter of law when plaintiff’s negligence equals or exceeds defendant’s)
Pullen v. West, 92 P.3d 584 (Kan. 2004) (participant in lighting fireworks barred from strict liability recovery)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant entitled to judgment where nonmovant fails to show essential element)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)