Posted on 12/08/2004 2:14:16 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- An attorney for the widow of a middle school teacher gunned down by a student argued before an appellate court Tuesday that the gun distributor was negligent in selling the cheap weapon and should be held liable.
Attorney Edna Caruso said federal officials told Valor Corp. for years that its .25-caliber Raven handgun was frequently used in crimes and that the company had a legal responsibility to make the weapons safer.
"Here we have a distributor that is known to distribute crime guns. It's been warned for years and years and years," Caruso said. "It says, 'I don't care because it's legal.' Well, just because something's legal doesn't mean it's not negligent.
Attorneys for Valor said the company cannot be considered negligent if someone uses the gun for a crime. They argue that teenager Nathaniel Brazill, who killed Barry Grunow (pictured, right) outside his Lake Worth Middle School classroom in May 2000, is to blame, along with family friend Elmore McCray, who stored the unlocked and loaded gun in a drawer, where Brazill found it.
Jurors in the November 2002 trial in the case largely spared Valor Corp. from blame. Grunow's attorneys asked for a $75 million judgment against the company, but jurors ordered the company to pay only $1.2 million to Pam Grunow and her two young children. A judge then threw out that verdict, and Pam Grunow appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Judge Mark E. Polen questioned whether Valor had a legal duty to protect society from the weapons it distributed. He said while he did not disagree "philosophically" with Grunow's claims, the issues might better be decided by the Legislature, not the courts.
"There was no evidence in this case that Valor was setting up little stands on street corners in dangerous neighborhoods. They were selling this gun to licensed dealers. Like any firearm, or any weapon, knife, billy club, whatever, Chinese stars, they can fall into the hands of criminals," Polen said. "Is that manufacturer or distributor liable to third-parties that were injured?"
But Judge Robert M. Gross quoted an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling on another case: "Where a defendant's conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty to either lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm the risk poses."
"The plaintiff argues that your client created a foreseeable zone of risk," Gross said to Valor attorney Tom Warner. "Then why isn't a duty created?"
Warner told the three-judge panel that the jury agreed the gun was not defective and not unreasonably dangerous. He said Valor can't be blamed for a criminal act that happened 12 years after the gun was sold.
Grunow's lawsuit against Valor was the first brought against the firearms industry to target the absence of a gun lock and the overall design of a cheap, easily concealable weapon known on the streets as a "Saturday Night Special." At the time, gun safety advocates said the verdict could force the industry to make safer guns.
Grunow, who made no comment on Tuesday, has said she wanted a large verdict to call attention to the dangerous weapons and their frequent use in crimes. Her attorneys are hoping the appeals court will reinstate more than the original $1.2 million verdict.
In the case, jurors said Grunow deserved $24 million but they also held Valor only 5 percent responsible in the shooting death, meaning she would have collected only a small fraction of the sum.
Jurors assigned half of the blame to McCray, and another 45 percent of the blame to the School Board for allowing Brazill to bring a weapon that he hid in his pocket onto campus. 
The School Board, McCray, and the pawn shop where he bought the gun settled with Grunow for a total of about $820,000.
Brazill (pictured, left), now 18, was sentenced to 28 years for killing his teacher. He said he pointed the handgun at Grunow to scare him and never intended to pull the trigger. He stole the gun from McCray after being sent home on the last day of school for throwing water balloons. He returned to campus to say goodbye to two girls and became angry when Grunow wouldn't let him inside his classroom.
The appeals court could take months to decide the case.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
It's always Bush's fault.
So sue the bullet makers.
Are they still trying this crap? Geez. Get the point already. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! PERIOD!
Title of article should read, "Attorneys Want Anyone but Shooter Held Responsible In Florida Teacher Shooting".
In a sane world these people would be laughed off the stage.
Penises are routinely used in rape. Does that mean that they need to be banned?
What about all them chevys and fords used in crimes?
Don't be a piker. I personally hold Thomas Edison responsible for inventing the phonography which allowed the Beatles to record Helter Skelter which was used as a tool of Charles Manson's "Family" murder spree.
They can have my Penis when they pry it out of my cold dead... err uh. Never mind.
WTH is a "forseeable zone of risk"?? Is it comparable to backing out of your driveway, cruising up the street and joining with thousands of other drivers at 75 MPH on an interstate highway? That seems like a "zone of risk" to me. Lawyerspeak is such fun.
Attorney's first question is always "who has the deepest pocket?" and then "let's find a friendly judge!" - scumbags!!
Can I sue my computer mfgr for making a kybored that makees mee msspel words alll the tome?
The implementation of Shakespeare's recommendations are long overdue.
According the the feminists, yes.
A gun is only 'safer' if it's made more accurate, less prone to blow when fired, and only fires when the trigger is pulled.
Other than that, this whole article is insanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.