This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is a manufacturer, dealer, and vendor of the 'King air rifle,' which is advertised by D as a harmless instrument for the amusement of young persons and others. P sold large quantities to the public and induced a belief that they were harmless to handle and without danger to life or limb. P alleges that D shipped for resale a certain air rifle loaded with shot; that such dealer, being unaware of the presence of such shot, resold the rifle to a certain retail dealer, who, being likewise ignorant of the fact that the rifle contained shot, placed the same in his stock and in charge of P, who was employed as a stockkeeper and saleswoman in his store. It was handled by a prospective customer who, believing that it was not loaded and was harmless, and being ignorant of the fact that it contained shot, proceeded to handle it and pulled the trigger. P was struck and lost sight in one eye and endangered the sight of the other in that it will probably be also lost. P sued D for negligence. D demurred in that the facts fail to show that D owed to P any duty to exercise reasonable care in the premises.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.