Title: Stanford v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

600 So. 2d 234 (1992)
Buford STANFORD, Jr., By and Through His Father, Buford STANFORD, Sr., as Next Friend
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
1901909.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 12, 1992.
Peter F. Burns of Burns, Cunningham & Mackey, Mobile, for appellant.
Paul D. Myrick and Cecily Kaffer of McRight, Jackson, Dorman, Myrick & Moore, Mobile, for appellee.
Matthew C. McDonald of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Retail Ass'n.
ALMON, Justice.
Nine-year-old Buford Stanford, Jr., was injured while he was playing with a dart game that he had purchased from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). Buford, through his father, filed an action in a federal district court against Wal-Mart, *235 seeking damages for his injury under the theory of negligent entrustment. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment and argued, in part, that Wal-Mart did not have a legal duty to refrain from selling the dart game to Buford. Alabama law controls this case. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S. Ct. 1020, 85 L. Ed. 1477 (1941); Morris v. SSE, Inc., 912 F.2d 1392, 1394 (11th Cir.1990). Wal-Mart's argument, if accepted, would be determinative of this action.
After reviewing the relevant case law and finding no controlling precedent, the federal court certified the question to this Court pursuant to Rule 18, Ala.R.App.P. The specific question posed is "Did Wal-Mart have a legal duty to refrain from selling the dart game at issue to nine-year-old Buford Stanford, Jr.?" The certificate from the federal district court contains the following statement of facts, with which Buford's father agrees:
Buford argues that Wal-Mart's liability is based on the theory of negligent entrustment as stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965). In Wilbanks v. Brazil, 425 So. 2d 1123 (Ala.1983), this Court stated:
Wilbanks, 425 So. 2d  at 1124-25. Wilbanks involved a parent's allegedly negligent entrustment of a golf club to her minor son. While playing with the golf club, the minor injured Wilbanks, also a minor. Wilbanks's parents filed a personal injury action, relying on the theory of negligent entrustment.
Reviewing the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants, this Court held that a golf club was not so inherently dangerous as to cause liability. This Court stated:
Wilbanks, 425 So. 2d  at 1125. This Court's determination that no legal duty existed was also based on the parties' relationship as parent and child.
Similar to this Court's analysis in Wilbanks, our analysis of whether Wal-Mart had a legal duty will depend on a consideration of the inherent dangers posed by the dart game and the relationship of the parties, a retailer and a minor. Other important factors for consideration are "the nature of the defendant's activity [and] the type of injury or harm threatened." Morgan v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. 466 So. 2d 107, 114 (Ala.1985). In the present case, this Court also notes Dean Prosser's comments regarding the determination of a duty in a negligence case:
William L. Prosser, Law of Torts § 31, at 149 (4th ed. 1974). Although not exhaustive, these considerations are helpful in determining Wal-Mart's legal duty.
Buford relies primarily on Jones v. Robbins, 289 So. 2d 104 (La.1974). In Jones, a *238 service station attendant sold a small quantity of gasoline to a six-year-old child. The child carried the gasoline home, where a four-year-old child lit a match and threw it into the gasoline. The gasoline burst into flames and ignited the four-year-old child's dress. The four-year-old child was severely burned. Her parents filed a negligence action against the service station.
In a five-to-two decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the service station. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the service station had a legal duty to refrain from selling gasoline to the six-year-old child. The Louisiana Supreme Court relied heavily on the inherently dangerous character of gasoline:
Jones, 289 So. 2d  at 107. Jones illustrates the consideration of a chattel's "inherently dangerous" character in determining the scope of a retailer's duty to refrain from selling chattels to minors.
The existence of Wal-Mart's legal duty depends, in part, on the inherent danger posed by the dart game. The darts were made of metal and plastic and had sharp metal points. Other jurisdictions have considered the dangerous character of dart games. In Pitts v. Basile, 35 Ill. 2d 49, 219 N.E.2d 472 (1966), the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the question of a wholesaler's liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965). The court held that darts were not so inherently dangerous as to create liability for a wholesaler. The court reasoned as follows:
Pitts, 35 Ill. 2d  at 51-52, 219 N.E.2d  at 474.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court focused on "lawn darts" in Atkins v. Arlans Dep't Store of Norman, Inc., 522 P.2d 1020 (Okla.1974), where a minor was injured when a "lawn dart" punctured his skull. In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the action, the court stated:
Atkins, 522 P.2d  at 1021-22. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court observed, the world will never be completely "child-proof."[1]
Since Atkins was decided, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has reviewed "lawn darts" and has prohibited them. 16 C.F.R. § 1306.1-.5; § 1500.18(a)(4). In doing so, however, the Commission specifically excluded from its prohibition the type of dart games involved in the present case, "indoor dart games that use a vertically-placed target, such as `English darts' or `American darts.'" 16 C.F.R. § 1306.4(c)(2). The Commission's express decision not to prohibit the type of darts involved in the present case is noteworthy.
In a factually similar case, a California Court of Appeal refused to impose negligent entrustment liability on the retailer of a toy slingshot. Bojorquez v. House of Toys, Inc., 62 Cal. App. 3d 930, 133 Cal. Rptr. 483 (1976). The court stated: "[I]n effect, [the minor plaintiff] asks us to ban the sale of toy slingshots by judicial fiat. Such a limitation is within the purview of the legislature, not the judiciary." Bojorquez, 62 Cal. App. 3d  at 933, 133 Cal. Rptr.  at 484.
This Court has briefly reviewed the Alabama Code and notes that the legislature is aware of its role in the protection of minors and of its ability to protect minors from dangerous products. In several instances, the Alabama legislature has already accomplished this by making the sale of certain products to minors illegal. The products that the legislature has determined to be dangerous to minors include pistols, Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-11-57, bowie knives or knives of similar description, id., cigarettes, § 13A-12-3, and alcoholic beverages, *240 § 28-3A-25. The legislature has not, however, suggested that darts are so inherently dangerous as to warrant statutory regulation.
Because the darts in the present case do not present the same degree of hazard as other chattels that are considered inherently dangerous, because the sale of the darts did not violate any state or federal statute or regulation, and because the legislature has not prohibited sales of darts to minors, this Court declines to place on a retailer a legal duty to refrain from selling dart games such as this one to a minor. The certified question is answered in the negative.
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES,[*] HOUSTON, STEAGALL,[*] and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
[1]  In discussing a landowner's liability for injuries to trespassing children, Dean Prosser states:

"But even though the condition is known, if it is not one from which any unreasonable danger to children is reasonably to be anticipated, there is no negligence in failing to protect them against it, and no liability.
"The stress here is upon `unreasonable.' There is virtually no condition upon any land with which a child may not possibly get himself into trouble. He may choke to death upon a green apple, pick up a stick and poke it into his eye, or have his skull fractured by a rock found and thrown by his companion. Unless the possessor is to shoulder the impossible burden of making his land completely `child-proof,' which might mean razing it to the bare earth, something more is called for than the general possibility of somehow coming to some harm which follows the child everywhere throughout his daily existence. Accordingly, there is a long line of cases involving normally harmless objects, such as a sharp-pointed pole, railroad spikes, a wooden horse, a piece of shingle on a roof, a red lantern, or even stationary vehicles, which have been held to be so innocuous that as a matter of law there was no liability, unless the possessor has some special reason to anticipate injury."
William L. Prosser, Law of Torts § 59, at 369-70 (4th ed. 1974). Although not determinative of whether Wal-Mart owed Buford a legal duty, the difficulty of "child-proofing" a high-volume retail sales operation is a significant consideration.
[*]  Although Justices SHORES and STEAGALL were not present at oral argument, they have listened to the tapes.