Willigan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1970 |
| Citation | 33 A.D.2d 1033,308 N.Y.S.2d 74 |
| Parties | William WILLIGAN, Respondent, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William L. Willigan, Sr., New York City, for plaintiff-respondent, John W. Fuhrman, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, RABIN, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 4, 1969, which denied its motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212) or, in the alternative, for judgment dismissing the second cause of action for its failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. (a), par. 7).
Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion for summary judgment granted.
In the absence of any claim that the firearm was defective when sold, it is our opinion that defendant, which sold a rifle to a 17-year old boy, such sale not being prohibited by statute (cf. former Penal Law, § 1898, subd. 5, which provided that the seller of a firearm to a minor under the age of 16 years is guilty of a misdemeanor), cannot be held liable for an injury to a third person resulting from the negligent or improper use of the rifle by the purchaser (cf. Corey v. Kaufman & Chernick, 70 R.I. 27, 36 A.2d 103; Wyllie v. Palmer, 137 N.Y. 248, 33 N.E. 381, 19 L.R.A. 285).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earsing v. Nelson
...of Modell's, Inc., 73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 450, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 855, 437 N.Y.S.2d 78, 418 N.E.2d 671; Willigan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 33 A.D.2d 1033, 308 N.Y.S.2d 74, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 680, 320 N.Y.S.2d 737, 269 N.E.2d 399). Whether the alleged statutory violations were a proximate caus......
-
Hulsman v. Hemmeter Development Corp.
...supra; Hulsebosch v. Ramsey, supra; Robinson v. Howard Bros. of Jackson, Inc., 372 So.2d 1074 (Miss.1979); Willigan v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 33 App.Div.2d 1033, 308 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1970), aff'd, 28 N.Y.2d 680, 269 N.E.2d 399, 320 N.Y.S.2d 737 For example, in Hulsebosch v. Ramsey, supra, the cour......
-
Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Civ. A. No. 77-84.
...experience with firearms and salesman had no knowledge or notice as to boy's experience with firearms). Cf., Willigan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 33 A.D.2d 1033, 308 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1970), aff'd., 28 N.Y.2d 680, 320 N.Y.S.2d 737, 269 N.E.2d 399 (1971) (in absence of any claim that rifle was defec......
- People v. S.