Cite as Trespalacios v. Valor Corp., 486 So.2d 649 (Fla. App. 3d
Dist. 1986)

Ramon Trespalacios, as personal representative of the Estate of
Juan Ramon Trespalacios, deceased, for the use and benefit of the
Estate of Juan Ramon Trespalacios, deceased, for Magda Caridad
Romeu Hernandez, surviving spouse of decedent, individually, and
for Ramon Trespalacios and Mirled Trespalacios, surviving minor
children of decedent, by and through their natural grandfather and
next friend, Ramon Trespalacios, Appellants,

                               v.

Valor Corporation of Florida, a Florida corporation, and Ithaca Gun 
Company, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellees.

                      Nos. 84-2560, 85-155.

      District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
   
        April 8, 1986.

     Hershoff & Levy and Jay M. Levy, Miami, for appellants.

     Haddad, Josephs & Jack and Lewis N. Jack, Coral Gables, for
appellee, Valor Corp. of Florida.

     No appearance for appellee, Ithaca Gun Co., Inc.

     Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

     FERGUSON, Judge.

     This case arose out of an August 20, 1982 incident where the
decedent, along with seven other individuals, was shot and killed
by a mad gunman, Carl Robert Brown, using a recently purchased
"riot and combat" shotgun. Suit was instituted against the seller
of the weapon, the distributor, and the manufacturer on theories of
negligence and strict product liability. This appeal is taken from
the order of the trial court which dismissed the ease as to the
distributor and manufacturer. We affirm.

     On the question of strict product liability it is now a
general rule that a manufacturer may be liable where a defect in
its product causes harm. On the other hand, it is also settled law
that "one who is injured while using a perfectly made axe or knife
would have no right to a strict liability action against the
manufacturer because the product that injured him was not
defective." Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981). A product which has obviously and inherently dangerous
qualities is not necessarily a defective product. See Radiation
Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So.2d 329, 331 (Fla.
1983); Auburn Machine Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So.2d 1167, 1170-71
(Fla. 1979). The complaint thus failed to state a claim on a strict
liability theory because there was no allegation that the product
was defective, i.e., that it failed to operate as the consumer
expected, and that the defect was the proximate cause of injury.
See Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A comment g (1965).

     For the reasons that the firearm was not defective, see Bennet
v. Cincinnati Checker Cab Co., 353 F.Supp. 1206 (E.D. Ky. 1973);
that manufacture or distribution of the weapon is not unlawful
pursuant to either state law or the federal Gun Control Act of
1968, 18 U.S.C. sections 921-928 (1982), see Linton v. Smith &
Wesson, 127 Ill. App.3d 676, 82 Ill.Dec. 805, 806, 469 N.E.2d 339,
340 (1984); and that neither the manufacturer nor distributor had
a duty to prevent the sale of handguns to persons who are likely to
cause harm to the public, see Riordan v. International Armament
Corp., 132 Ill.App.3d 642, 87 Ill.Dec. 765, 477 N.E.2d 1293 (1985);
Linton; cf. K-Mart Enterprises of Florida, Inc. v. Keller, 439
So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (retailer held liable when firearm
sold to person who was unlawful user of marijuana and subject of
felony information, in violation of federal Gun Control Act, was
criminally misused), rev. denied, 450 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1984), there
was no duty which had been breached by the manufacturer and
distributor so as to support a cause of action based on negligence.
See Bennet. 

     Affirmed.