Big Will Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/14/gun.trial.ap/index.html Gun supplier told to pay widow $1.2 million Thursday, November 14, 2002 Posted: 7:19 PM EST WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) -- In a landmark case targeting inexpensive handguns, a jury ordered a gun distributor Thursday to pay $1.2 million to the widow of a teacher gunned down by a 13-year-old student. The jury, however, pinned most of the fault for the 2000 slaying of Barry Grunow on the gun's owner and school officials. Widow Pam Grunow sued distributor Valor Corp., claiming the small, cheap pistol of the kind used by the student killer often fall into the hands of juveniles and criminals. It was the first case to address both the absence of a gun lock and the flaws associated with a cheap, easily concealable weapon. But the jury said 45 percent of the fault for Grunow's death lies with the school board for allowing Nathaniel Brazill onto campus that day and 50 percent with the family friend who kept the gun unlocked in a dresser drawer, where Brazill found it. Brazill was sentenced to 28 years behind bars for killing his teacher with the .25-caliber Raven handgun. Valor Corp., with 14,000 licensed firearms dealers nationwide, argued the gun did what it was designed to do and it wasn't at fault. The jury largely agreed, ordering the Lake Worth school board to pay Grunow and her two children $10.8 million and the family friend $12 million to the widow. Attorneys for Pam Grunow had said the gun has no purpose because it's too unreliable and that it's not used by collectors, law enforcement officers or the military, or for target practice, hunting or self-defense. Plaintiff's attorney Bob Montgomery, known for successfully spearheading the state's efforts to sue Big Tobacco for $11.3 billion, said he hoped the gun case would achieve the same results. Pam Grunow listens to the verdict Thursday. Brazill said he pointed the gun at his teacher to scare him and never intended to shoot. Grunow earlier sued the family friend from whose home the gun was taken, and the Hypoluxo Pawn Shop where the gun was purchased. Those lawsuits were settled for a total of $575,000. The gun manufacturer, Raven Arms Inc., is no longer in business. Grunow's attorneys had hoped for a verdict large enough to force companies to stop selling the Raven, known on the street as a junk gun or "Saturday Night Special," because of its small size and low cost. The Raven can be bought for as little as $75, less than half the cost of similar firearms. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO This whole thing is idiotic! A boy steals a gun from a neighbor's home, takes it to school to shoot a teacher and not only are the school and the neighbor held responsible, but the makers of the gun are also held responsible. Maybe its just me but the only one who is responsible for this is the murderer, Nate Brazil. In what way is the school responsible? Should the halls of school be infested with hundreds of policemen to monitor every student? Hypothetically, you could walk into any public facility and shoot whoever. Now how is the facility responsible? This whole thing is about personal responsibility. Blame everyone else but the murderer. This gun company produces a LEGAL product. If they want ban firearms then DO it. But don't punish the company if a sicko murders someone. Does this enrage anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 More liberal BS. That gun made it all the way from that house to the school, loaded itself and shot that guy all by itself. I think someone should start a class action suit to rid the streets of ambulance chasing lawyers like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 I'm not exactly a member of the NRA or a fan of guns in general, but I agree, this is just lame. People need to start being accountable for their own actions. I especially like how the jury was able to determine the exact percentage of responsibility each part had in the murder. I'm happy to know that if I get drunk and kill someone with my car, I'm probably less than 50% responsible for it. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 I wonder if they'll sue Louisville Slugger or Easton the next time someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat. Or maybe they should just sue Major League Baseball for promoting the use of those bats. I'm not much on guns and the NRA irks me at times ... but this is just rediculous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted November 16, 2002 Share Posted November 16, 2002 where's ART?!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by Canyonero! I especially like how the jury was able to determine the exact percentage of responsibility each part had in the murder. I'm happy to know that if I get drunk and kill someone with my car, I'm probably less than 50% responsible for it. :doh: Yeah, just don't let some drunk steal your car out of your garage and kill someone with it. Then you'll be 50% responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 There was an episode of Law and Order that dealt with a similar issue. However the gun in question was a semi-automatic and the legal issue was that the gun could easily be changed into an automatic. the prosecutors argued that the gun maker wanted to make the gun easily convertible to an automatic as a way to sell the gun. ofcourse this was a criminal proceeding not a civil one, and i cant remember the verdict but i believe the jury found the gunmaker guilty of negligant homicide. But to find a gunmaker liable for just making a gun is rather ridiculous. This means anything produced that could possibly kill someone can possibly be sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Romo sits to pee There was an episode of Law and Order that dealt with a similar issue. However the gun in question was a semi-automatic and the legal issue was that the gun could easily be changed into an automatic. the prosecutors argued that the gun maker wanted to make the gun easily convertible to an automatic as a way to sell the gun. ofcourse this was a criminal proceeding not a civil one, and i cant remember the verdict but i believe the jury found the gunmaker guilty of negligant homicide. I remember that episode. I believe the jury found the gunmakers guilty, but the judge overturned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.