## Facts

- Nearly 15-year-old George Barker and teenage companions Ayman and Anas Kallash built a pipe bomb in the backyard of the Barker home in Brooklyn.
- The device was a short metal pipe capped at both ends, filled with gunpowder, with a drilled hole for a fuse.
- George obtained the pipe, caps, and drill from his father’s workshop; he testified the gunpowder was supplied by the Kallash brothers after being extracted from firecrackers.
- George testified the Kallash brothers obtained the firecrackers from Daniel Melucci Jr., who was nearly 9 years old, and that George had told them where to buy them.
- The bomb exploded while George was screwing on the second cap, severely injuring his hands.
- The complaint alleged negligence against Melucci Jr. and his parents based on the sale of firecrackers and inadequate parental supervision, plus other claims against additional defendants; only the Melucci-related claim was at issue on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether public policy bars a plaintiff injured while knowingly and intentionally participating in a serious criminal act from recovering in tort against an alleged contraband supplier.
2. Whether CPLR 1411 (comparative negligence) eliminates or limits a public-policy bar to recovery when the injury is the direct result of the plaintiff’s serious criminal conduct.
3. Whether the plaintiff’s status as a minor affects application of the public-policy bar.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the claims against Melucci Jr. and his parents.
- The court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain a tort action when the injury is the direct result of the plaintiff’s knowing and intentional participation in a serious criminal act.
- The court concluded that constructing a pipe bomb is a prohibited, inherently dangerous activity and the injury flowed immediately from that conduct.
- The court held CPLR 1411 did not alter the result because the bar is grounded in public policy rather than comparative fault.
- The court declined to create a minor-status exception where the plaintiff was old enough to understand the wrongful nature of bomb-making.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may deny tort recovery on public-policy grounds when a plaintiff’s injury is the direct result of the plaintiff’s knowing and intentional participation in a serious criminal act.
- The bar applies even if a defendant’s conduct is also negligent or unlawful, so long as the plaintiff’s serious criminal conduct directly caused the injury.
- The doctrine is distinct from contributory or comparative negligence; CPLR 1411 reduces damages based on fault but does not displace a categorical public-policy denial of recovery.
- The seriousness of the illegality and the closeness of the causal connection are central: prohibited, dangerous conduct with an immediate causal link to the harm supports denial of judicial relief.

## Conclusion

The court held that public policy precludes a tort action seeking damages for injuries suffered while making a pipe bomb because the harm was the direct consequence of the plaintiff’s knowing participation in a serious criminal act, and comparative negligence principles do not permit recovery in those circumstances.


Barker v. Kallash, 63 N.Y.2d 19 (N.Y. 1984)