Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
593 F.2d 526 (1979)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Lloyd Fullman, Jr. was a convicted felon. Fullman went to a Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Sears) (defendant) in Delaware and purchased a rifle and ammunition. A Delaware statute required that any person purchasing a deadly weapon give the name of two freeholders living in the county where the purchase is made who can positively identify the purchaser. Under the statute, a deadly weapon includes pistols, revolvers, and revolver and pistol cartridges, among other things. The cartridges that Fullman bought were labeled as rifle ammunition, but they could also be used in pistols and revolvers. Sears did not require Fullman to produce the names of two freeholders for positive identification. Six weeks later, Fullman robbed a restaurant. During the robbery, Fullman shot a security guard, James Hetherton (plaintiff), in the head. Hetherton was seriously injured. Fullman was apprehended and convicted of several crimes. Hetherton and his wife sued Sears for negligence, alleging that by failing to follow the Delaware statute requiring identification by two freeholders, Sears was negligent in selling the rifle and ammunition to Fullman. Sears argued that the ammunition it sold to Fullman was labeled for use with rifles, and therefore did not fall within the identification requirements for deadly weapons. Sears moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment. Hetherton appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Higginbotham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.