## Facts

- Lloyd Fullman, Jr. bought a .22 caliber rifle and ammunition from a Delaware Sears store.
- About six weeks later, during an attempted robbery of a Wilmington restaurant, Fullman used the rifle to shoot James Hetherton, an off-duty police officer working as a guard; fragments remained in Hetherton’s head.
- Fullman had prior felony convictions and, under Delaware law, was prohibited from purchasing or possessing a deadly weapon.
- Delaware law required a dealer, before selling a “deadly weapon,” to obtain the purchaser’s positive identification from two freeholders.
- Sears did not obtain two freeholder identifications; Fullman presented a Delaware driver’s license and completed federal Form 4473, falsely denying any felony conviction.
- James and Carol Hetherton sued Sears, alleging negligent violation of the Delaware identification requirement and negligence in selling a deadly weapon to a prohibited purchaser.

## Issues

1. Whether Delaware’s deadly-weapon sale statute requiring identification by two freeholders creates a duty running from the seller to members of the general public injured by a prohibited purchaser.
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find that Sears’ statutory noncompliance and alleged negligence were a proximate cause of Hetherton’s injuries, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Sears and remanded.
- The court held the Delaware statutory scheme was intended to protect the public from the danger of prohibited persons obtaining deadly weapons, supporting a civil duty to persons like Hetherton.
- The court held proximate cause and foreseeability could not be resolved as a matter of law because a jury could find Sears’ failure to follow the freeholder-identification safeguard contributed to the shooting.

## Legal Principles

- Violation of a safety statute intended to protect a class of persons from a type of harm may constitute negligence, or at least evidence of negligence, in a civil action under Delaware law.
- Firearms-control measures aimed at preventing prohibited purchasers from obtaining weapons may protect members of the general public injured by such purchasers, not only governmental interests.
- Intervening criminal conduct does not automatically negate proximate cause where the harm is within the risks the statute sought to prevent and reasonable factfinders could differ on foreseeability.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate in negligence cases when evidence would permit a jury to find duty, breach, and proximate cause.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Delaware’s statutory identification requirements for deadly-weapon sales may create a civil duty to the public and that a jury could reasonably find Sears’ statutory noncompliance was a proximate cause of Hetherton’s injuries, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.


Hetherton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 593 F.2d 526 (3d Cir. 1979)