Everett v. CarterEverett v. Carter
Appellant, Diane Everett, as personal representative of thе estate of Wayne D. Everett, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellee, Amos Gunn, d/b/a Uncle Sam‘s Gun Shоp and Pawn Shop, in this wrongful death action. Finding that the trial court was correct in granting a summary judgment below, but for the wrong reasons, we affirm.
A proper ruling, even if based on the wrong reason, should be affirmed. Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1978); Congregation Temple De Hirsch v. Aronson, 128 So.2d 585 (Fla. 1961); Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, 98 So.2d 77 (Fla. 1957); U.S. Home Corporation v. Suncoast Utilities, Inc., 454 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Moudy v. Southland Distributing Company of St. Petersburg, Inc., 452 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The undisputed facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. On February 7, 1983, John Wade Carter, age nineteen, went to Uncle Sam‘s Gun Shop, which was owned and operated by Amos Gunn, appellee. Carter found a .44 magnum Ruger revolver at the gun shоp which he liked, but was unable to purchase because he was under twenty-one years of age. A federally licensed firearm dealer is prohibited from selling or delivering any firearm other than a shotgun or a rifle to any individual who the licеnsee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age.
Six weeks later on March 24, 1983, appellant‘s husband, Wayne D. Everett, was shot by Carter, who used the .44 magnum revolver which had been purchased from apрellee Gunn. Carter was convicted of second degree murder concerning the death of Mr. Everett, and his sentence in that case was affirmed by this court in the case of Carter v. State, 464 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA), aff‘d, 479 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1985).
Appellant‘s cause of action against appellee Gunn is based upon a negligence per se theory growing out of appellee Gunn‘s unquestionable violation of
It appears to us, however, that there exists an anomaly in the law in the State of Florida with respect to thе sale and possession of firearms other than rifles or shotguns as a result of the irreconcilable provisions of Florida and federal law. While it is a violation of
We find little to distinguish this case from the case of Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Inc., 372 So.2d 1074 (Miss. 1979). That case involvеd a minor who represented himself to be an adult and purchased a firearm in violation of
A clear statement on this question of foreseeability appеars in W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, pp. 173, 174 (4th ed. 1971), where the author states:
There is normally much less reason to anticipate acts on the part of others which are malicious and intentionally damaging than those which are merely negligent; and this is all the more true where, as is usually the case, suсh acts are criminal. Under all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any reason to expеct the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the сriminal law. (Footnote omitted.)
Thus, we conclude that the summary judgment in favor of appellee Gunn was properly еntered because the intervening criminal act of Carter, who was in lawful possession of the firearm, was an unforeseeable consequence of the violation of
We find this case distinguishable from K-Mart Enterprises of Florida, Inc. v. Keller, 439 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) due to the fact that Carter was under no legal prohibition under either federal or state law from possessing or owning the weapon in question.
Affirmed.
DANAHY, Acting C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.