JAMES T. COULSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY DEANGELO, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a gun manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable for a gun's criminal use, as the defect must be in the product itself, not its use.
[1] A manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable for a product's alleged defectiveness based solely on its dangerous use by a third party, rather than a manufacturing defect…
[2] The doctrine of strict liability for defective products requires that the product itself be "wrong" when it reaches the consumer, not that its use by the consumer is inhe…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sued a gun manufacturer, alleging strict liability because the gun manufactured could not be used for legitimate purposes and was used for c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Defective Product cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. We reject the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims against a gun manufacturer for failure to state a cause of action. Trespalacios v. Valor Corporation of Florida, 486 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
The complaint alleged that the International Armament Corporation was strictly liable because a gun which it manufactured, and which was used to injure the plaintiff, could not be used for any legitimate purpose and was solely used for the commission of criminal acts. The plaintiff alleged that this made the gun a defective product and that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable. This concept has been consistently rejected. The essence of the doctrine of strict liability for a defective condition is that the product reaches the consumer with something “wrong” with it. In contrast the plaintiff alleged that it was the use of the gun that made it defective, not that it malfunctioned or had a faulty design.
Additionally the complaint alleged that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for engaging in an ultrahaz-ardous activity. This doctrine has never been applied in Florida in circumstances such as these and liability under the doctrine is generally imposed where a defendant engages in an activity which necessarily involves a risk of serious harm. The plaintiff did not allege that the act of manufacturing the gun was abnormally dangerous; instead, he alleged that the use of the completed product by others was unusually dangerous. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed this count of complaint.
The only case to adopt a new theory of liability which holds a manufacturer of a “Saturday Night Special” strictly liable to innocent persons who are injured by the criminal use of a gun is Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc., 497 A. 2d 1143 (Md.1985). But even the Maryland court rejected the arguments that a manufacturer could be held strictly liable under traditional theories of liability.
HERSEY, C.J. and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liggett Grp., Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…sible for all the harm that such things do in the world.” Cassisi, 396 So. 2d at 1144 (citation omitted). Thus only “bad” tobacco should be subject to the section 402A standard. See id. We applied the principles of comment i in Coulson v. DeAngelo, 493 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), a case involving a handgun “solely used for the commission of criminal acts.” We affirmed a dismissal of the plaintiffs section 402A claim for failure to state a cause of action, recognizing that the “essence of the doctrine…
-
Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc., 778 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…486 So. 2d at 650 (citations omitted). As to the contention that the appel-lees or some of them are engaged in an ultra hazardous activity for which they should be held liable, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded in Coulson v. DeAngelo, 493 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986): “[T]he complaint alleged that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for engaging in an ultra hazardous activity.... [Liability under the doctrine is generally imposed where a defendant engages in an activity which…
-
Grunow v. Valor Corp. OF Fla., 904 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…y distribute a non-defective gun. Notwithstanding, Grunow argues that Florida law could impose such a duty. However, Grunow’s primary manner of persuasion is to distinguish the cases which are contrary to her position, primarily Coulson v. DeAngelo, 493 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), Trespalacios v. Valor Corp. of Florida, 486 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) and Shipman v. Jennings Firearms, Inc., 791 F. 2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1986). 1. Did [Valor] sell and supply an unreasonably dangerous and defective produ…
Authorities Cited
- Trespalacios v. Valor Corp. OF Fla., 486 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)