(7) RAYMOND PHIL SMITH AND THELMA SUE SMITH, Plaintiffs and appellants v. LOCKHEED PROPULSION COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent (Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Div. 2, Jan. 17, 1967. Hearing denied March 15, 1967. OPINION Tamura, Justice) Plaintiffs appeal from a judgement of nonsuit in their action to recover damages to their real property allegedly caused by seismic vibrations activated by a static firing rocket motor test conducted by defendant on adjoining lands pursuant to a contract with the United States. The complaint was framed on theories of negligence and strict liability... On the issue of strict liability, plaintiffs urge that defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity and hence, was liable without regard to fault... Section 520 of the Restatement of Torts defines ultrahazardous activity as follows: "An activity is ultrahazardous if it (a) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care, and (b) is not a matter of common usage." California has apparently accepted the Restatement definition... Whether an activity is ultrahazardous is a question of law to be determined by the court. (Luthringer v. Moore, supra, 31 Cal.2d at page 496, 190 P.2d 1; Beck v. Bel Air Properties, Inc., supra, 134 Cal.App.2d at page 842, 286 P.2d 503; Rest., Torts, § 520, comment h). In our opinion, defendant's activity must be classed as ultrahazardous. The none fuel rocket motor was the largest ever tested to that date. Test firing such a device is not a matter of common occurrence. The fact that defendant found it necessary to acquire 9100 acres for its purposes, and at one time told plaintiffs it needed their property in order to conduct the test, is evidence of its recognition of the risk inherent in the undertaking despite the exercise of due care. In these circumstances, public policy calls for strict liability. (Luthringer v. Moore, supra, 31 Cal.2d 489, 500, 190 P.2d 1; Rest., Torts, § 520). There is no basis, either in reason or justice, for requiring the innocent neighboring landowner to bear the loss. Defendant, who is engaged in the enterprise for profit, is in a position best able to administer the loss so that it will ultimately be borne by the public. As Professor Prosser summarizes the rationale for the imposition of strict liability: "The problem is dealt with as one of allocating a more or less inevitable loss to be charged against a complex and dangerous civilization, and liability is placed upon the party best able to shoulder it." (Prosser, Law of Torts, (2d ed. 1955) page 318). The precise issue before us—whether rocket motor testing constitutes an ultrahazardous activity—was squarely considered and answered affirmatively in Berg v. Reaction Motors Div., (1962) 37 N.J. 396, 181 A.2d 487, under a factual setting remarkably similar to the instant case...