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

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.