|
1827 REVIEW DENIED A fire causing damage to property was not a foreseeable result of providing a fifteen-year-old with a cigarette; the statute that prohibits furnishing cigarettes to minors was not designed to protect property owners against the risk of fire, so in an action for damages resulting from fire, the negligence of one furnishing a minor with cigarettes in violation of the statute cannot be presumed.CitationWAWANESA v MATLOCK (Burning Poles) 60 CA4 583 [See: EvC 669; PenC 308; Palsgraf v LIRR 248 NY 339; Mangini v RJ Reynolds 7 C4 1057]
|
|
