Cite as Coulson v. DeAngelo, 493 So.2d 98 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1986)

                  James T. Coulson, Appellant,

                               v.

              Anthony DeAngelo, et al., Appellees.

                          No. 85-1790.

      District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

                         Sept. 10, 1986.

     Peter Mineo, Jr. and Angelo Marine, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for
appellant.

     James B. Hamlin and Delissa A. Ridgway of Shaw, Pittman, Potts
& Trowbridge, Washington, D.C., and Paul C. Huck of Fleming & Huck,
Miami, for appellee Intern. Armament Corp.

     PER CURIAM.

     Affirmed. We reject the appellant's contention that the trial
court erred in dismissing his claims against a gun manufacturer for
failure to state a cause of action. Trespalacios v. Valor
Corporation of Florida, 486 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

     The complaint alleged that the International Armament
Corporation was strictly liable because a gun which it
manufactured, and which was used to injure the plaintiff, could not
be used for any legitimate purpose and was solely used for the
commission of criminal acts. The plaintiff alleged that this made
the gun a defective product and that the manufacturer should be
held strictly liable. This concept has been consistently rejected.
The essence of the doctrine of strict liability for a defective
condition is that the product reaches the consumer with something
"wrong" with it. In contrast the plaintiff alleged that it was the
use of the gun that made it defective, not that it malfunctioned or
had a faulty design.

     Additionally the complaint alleged that the manufacturer
should be held strictly liable for engaging in an ultrahazardous
activity. This doctrine has never been applied in Florida in
circumstances such as these and liability under the doctrine is
generally imposed where a defendant engages in an activity which
necessarily involves a risk of serious harm. The plaintiff did not
allege that the act of manufacturing the gun was abnormally
dangerous; instead, he alleged that the use of the completed
product by others was unusually dangerous. Thus, the trial court
correctly dismissed this count of complaint.

     The only case to adopt a new theory of liability which holds
a manufacturer of a "Saturday Night Special" strictly liable to
innocent persons who are injured by the criminal use of a gun is
Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc., 497 A.2d 1143 (Md.1985). But even
the Maryland court rejected the arguments that a manufacturer could
be held strictly liable under traditional theories of liability.

     HERSEY, C.J. and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.