Opinion ID: 1953032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: firearm is a dangerous instrumentality

Text: Consistent with section 390's foreseeability standard and its application here is another well-established common law principle of negligence in Florida recognizing that a firearm is a dangerous instrumentality. [8] We have held that because the use of a dangerous instrumentality, like a firearm, involves such a high degree of risk of serious injury or death, a person who handles or deals in firearms is expected to exercise the highest degree of care. Skinner v. Ochiltree, 148 Fla. 705, 708, 5 So.2d 605 (1941); see also McCain, 593 So.2d at 503. As we explained in Skinner: They [firearms] are classified as dangerous instrumentalities.... The highest degree of care is necessary in the manipulation or use of firearms in the presence of or in the vicinity of others so as to avoid injuries to others, and if injury results from the negligent discharge of firearms used or handled by another, ... the law makes the person causing the injury liable. 148 Fla. at 708, 5 So.2d 605. Furthermore, liability for the entrustment of a dangerous instrument, such as a firearm, to an intoxicated person is specifically addressed in comment c to section 390 of the Restatement: So too, if the supplier knows that the condition of the person to whom the chattel is supplied is such as to make him incapable of exercising the care which it is reasonable to expect of a normal sober adult, the supplier may be liable for harm sustained by the incompetent although such person deals with it in a way which may render him liable to third persons who are also injured. (Emphasis added); see also Reginald J. Holzer, Liability to the Injured Third Party for Negligent Entrustment of a Firearm, 59 Chi. Bar Rec. 346 (1978). [9] Not surprisingly, this Court also has recognized that the high degree of risk inherent in the use of a dangerous instrument escalates when such an instrument is used by a person who is intoxicated and unable to exercise caution. Ingram v. Pettit, 340 So.2d 922 (Fla.1976) (describing how intoxication can affect the operation of an automobile); see also Horne v. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc., 533 So.2d 261, 265 (Fla.1988) (Kogan, J., dissenting). Although, as noted earlier, this Court passed on the opportunity to expressly adopt the common law principles set out in section 390 of the Restatement under the specific facts of Horne, Justice Kogan actually recognized then the broad dangers in the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an incompetent person: [A] firearms seller could sell a loaded gun to a child and evade liability when that child shoots someone. I believe that these results, as well as the one in this case, should be discouraged by our courts. Id. at 265. Justice Kogan's reasoning rings tragically true in this case, and we echo it here. Also see Rodriguez v. Esquijarosa and Seabrook v. Taylor , cited above. Ironically, and to its credit, K-Mart itself has recognized the danger of placing dangerous firearms in the hands of intoxicated persons and has adopted a strict policy forbidding such practice.