The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-15
DANGERS OF TOY PISTOLS

very Interesting case-weiss vs.. Fitcn-came
up Tor trial yesterday before Judge Gross, In Ma
rine Court, Part ?. It was an action 10 recover
damages Tor the loss Of an eve By young lad
named Louis Weiss. elsven years OF age the IN
Jury winch led thereto having been indicted py
Joseph Fitch, aged ten. Tue parent OF Weiss
brings the action against the latner OF young
Fitcn. The case Is interesting from the questions
OF liability raised on toe trial and the citations
ana ruling OF the Court thereon.
The facts IN TINS case are simply these The
plaintiffs son, Louis Weiss, IN April last was In
company with the defendants son Joseph. Tue
latter mad, two days before tue accident detailed
below, purchased a TOY pistol. ana mad been using
IL, together WIN some other companions VINO mad
similar toys. Early the morning of the day IN
question these boys assembled In the street, near
the residence OF their parents. and were practising
with their pistols at the trunk OF tree when the
cap OF Joseph's pistol exploded, and piece Of the
instrument struck the rignt eye OF the pisIntn's
sou LOUIS. HE was Immediately taken 10
physician. aIrer that TO an ocullst wnen II was
discovered that the eye could not De saved.
and tnat 10 Or0er TO preserve the sight IN the other
eve tue wounded organ nad 70 be removed. TINS
acn0n was Drought ~ recover DOCTORS and other
lees, and Tor the loss OF the services Oi the
son. 1t being snosn that previous 20 ne accident
he was IN receipt OF 81 50 a week, winch the PLAIN
tin received. There littls or no controversy
10 the occurrence and cause u The injuries. Un
the same evening. ue.endaut having nearu u what
had occurred, repaired 10 plaInun's house when
ne expressed MS sorrow Tor wat hau happened,
and admitted as testified 70. mat ne nad gwen
the pls Ol 10 ms scl Is pay thlng, not knowing
It's dangerous character. The purchase Of tue
pistol BY dim and tue admission referred 70, de-
iendant denied, statlng tndt ne nau gwen his son
twenty-five cent?. DuG DAD not know 70 what
use ne would put IT. Counsel Ior the PLAIN
ity Of toe defendant for the inJu4Ies, wnlle
defendanrs counsel coutended that no legal
liability attached To the parent Tor the act Of tue
cnId. the later not being Al the time ia the
ploy ment VI service " uls a ner, and also tnat
tnefe was c0ntrbuuve negligence on tne part VI
the inJureu o0y. On these ArOunus motion MAS
mace u DISMISS tue Complaint. Judge Gross de-
nle0 Toe m0tl0n UPON Tue question o. Law pre-
sented IN the case. Many cases nad been cited Oy
counsel, out ne Judge Cross thought the only
one tnat bore upon tue present Que was one re-
ported IN The tnlrd wendell. page Sst. IN That
case tne iacts we're :-Ihe plalntIn ana defendant
a. ended toe same school, anu during play hours
TIE defendant, VINO mad been sa00Llng Win DOW
and arrow, salu 10 his play elbow. "a vii snoos
yOu.h Tue boy ran into tue scn0OrO0m, followed
% the otner. me latter discharged the arrow,
Striking tue lao in tie eye wnicn ne even uay lost
10 that case an action 10 recover Tor he ary was
Drought eleven years after the occurrence. as
against the 10Y. tue Jury rendering 4 verdict m
$3.50 damages. On tue trla. the Court Oyerfuled
the objection taken-that it vas tue parent, aud
not the boy IimseE tnat vas TespOnsiye-aud on
appe4l tn ruling 81 tgv Judge Was sustained.
DoIns j. mere mace b, he pialntIn that the
toy pistol was dangerous Instrument. and that
IL was negligence on tue part Of tue parent 70 per-
init hss son ~ use tuls danRe0u toy. III the urst
pace no evidence vas rendered that IL was known
70 % dangerous ms rument, aud that me iatner
knUGlngy permitted the o0n ~ use IT. A. does
appear nat the iatner was not present wnen the
pistol was nfed, aud therefore ne could not pro-
nIut the son RON firing II. Inc only
taeory uron wuica toe iatner cOud De held re-
sDonslble would De that knoytug ne dangerous
character 81 the toy, ne permitted ~ use, mat
toe inlary vas the result % negligence, In tne
presence and with Inc kuONledge ~ tie latner. or
tlat tue boy At toe time VI the alleged negligence
was ~ tue perior nance OF sOme service iOr the
Iatner; anu Il is not cOntenaed that TINS last cir
cumstance was rne case.
Judge cross cited a number or other Authorities
10 uYfN nj IT. ri 4 nm "A war