Forni v. Ferguson
| Decision Date | 01 October 1996 |
| Citation | 648 N.Y.S.2d 73,232 A.D.2d 176 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,782 John FORNI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Colin FERGUSON, Defendant, and Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
Alan M. Goldberg, New York City, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
James P. Dorr, Daniel P. Jaffe, Edward P. Dunphy, William A. Rome, New York City, for Defendants-Respondents.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ELLERIN, NARDELLI and ANDRIAS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered August 10, 1995, which granted the motions of defendants Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Olin Corporation and Ram-Line, Inc., to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While there have been and will be countless debates over the issue of whether the risks of firearms outweigh their benefits, it is for Legislature to decide whether manufacture, sale and possession of firearms is legal. To date, the manufacture, sale and ownership of the semi-automatic handgun, ammunition and magazine at issue in this case have been legally permitted. Plaintiffs herein have failed to satisfactorily allege the existence of a legally cognizable defect in the condition of the pistol, ammunition and magazine (Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440). As a matter of law, a product's defect is related to its condition, not its intrinsic function (id., at 479, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440). As stated by the Court in DeRosa v. Remington Arms Co., 509 F.Supp. 762, 769:
Sadly it must be acknowledged that: (m)any products, however well-built or well-designed may cause injury or death. Guns may kill; knives may maim; liquor may cause alcoholism; but the mere fact of injury does not entitle the (person injured) to recover ... there must be something wrong with the product, and if nothing is wrong there will be no liability.
The motion court also properly denied plaintiffs' motion to add a cause of action based upon negligence. Plaintiffs did not, nor could they, show that defendants-manufacturers owed plaintiffs a duty of care, that the manufacturers breached their duty of care, and that the manufacturers' breach of their duty of care was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries (Purdy v. Public Adm'r of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.
...1295-1296; Linton v. Smith & Wesson, Inc. (1984) 127 Ill.App.3d 676, 82 Ill. Dec. 805, 469 N.E.2d 339, 340; Forni v. Ferguson (N.Y.App.Div.1996) 232 A.D.2d 176, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73, 74; Leslie v. United States (D.N.J.1997) 986 F.Supp. 900, 911-913, affd. (3d Cir.1999) 178 F.3d When added to the......
-
Johnson v. Bryco Arms
...Remington Arms Co., Inc., 509 F.Supp. 762, 767 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (design of trigger pull on shotgun not defective); Forni v. Ferguson, 232 A.D.2d 176, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73, 74 (1996) (design of pistol, ammunition and magazine of semi-automatic handgun not defective). The absence of an anti-theft or......
-
McCarthy v. Olin Corp.
...suit against Olin Corp.); Forni v. Ferguson, No. 132994/94, slip. op. (N.Y.Sup.Ct. New York County Aug. 2, 1995), aff'd, 232 A.D.2d 176, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1st Dep't 1996) (action by victim of Long Island Railroad shooting against Olin Corp.). Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complain......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, CV-95-0049 (JBW).
...for the marketing of a dangerous product, rather than for the nature of the marketing technique. See, e.g., Forni v. Ferguson, 232 A.D.2d 176, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1st Dep't 1996) (semiautomatic handgun); McCarthy v. Olin Corp., 119 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.1997) (hollow point bullets); Bikowicz v. Ste......