http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5045584.htm
Posted on Tue, Jan. 28, 2003
Verdict against gun firm in teacher's death is rejected
Judge: No liability if weapon was properly made
By NOAH BIERMAN
[email protected]
Two months after a jury gave gun control advocates a major victory, a South Florida judge took it away Monday, tossing out a $1.2 million award to the widow of a slain schoolteacher.
In an unusual split verdict, the jury found in November that the handgun used by 12-year-old Nathaniel Brazill to kill Barry Grunow was not a defective product, but that the Sunrise-based gun distributor still had to pay Pam Grunow to compensate her for the loss of her husband.
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga, who presided over the trial, ruled Monday that the distributor could not be penalized if the gun was properly made.
The case has been watched closely by both sides of the gun debate because it is one of the few against the industry to reach a jury. It gained further attention because of the nature of the crime. The killing of the Lake Worth Middle School teacher on the last day of school in the summer of 2000 made national headlines, one of a spate of campus killings involving firearms.
Both sides expect to continue waging this battle in higher courts.
'The plaintiffs' bar should be careful in filing these types of lawsuits because the members of the industry are willing to fight these cases to the end,'' said John Renzulli, a New York attorney who represents Valor Corp., which distributed the gun.
Renzulli also represents several gun manufacturers defending similar suits.
SYMBOL FOR GUN FOES
The $1.2 million jury award, while small by the standards of product liability lawsuits, had been savored by gun-control advocates because it represented a new avenue to attack the industry. Pam Grunow's attorney, Bob Montgomery, had led Florida's successful fight against Big Tobacco and has made no secret that he wants to similarly cripple the gun industry.
He labeled the small, cheap handgun used to kill Grunow a ''Saturday Night Special,'' claiming its only appeal was killing on the cheap. Jurors in this case agreed only in part, holding Valor Corp. 5 percent responsible for Grunow's death. Raven Corp., the gun's manufacturer, is out of business and was not named in the suit.
The school district and the gun's owner, a family friend of Brazill's, both settled out of court but were held a combined 95 percent responsible by the jury.
Labarga said the jury's November verdict contradicted itself.
On the one hand, jurors faulted Valor for supplying a gun without ''feasible safety measures.'' But on the same verdict form, jurors said the gun itself -- a small, cheap .25-caliber weapon easily clasped by a 12-year-old -- was not defective or lacking in reasonable safety measures.
That, Labarga wrote, ``rendered the verdict fatally inconsistent.''
Grunow's attorney will now ask an appeals court to either reinstate the jury award or to grant a new trial.
Allen Rostron, an attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, had joined Grunow in her suit. He said Labarga's ruling will not set legal precedent because it was attributable to a flawed verdict form that will not be used in other cases.
Still, he acknowledges that gun-control advocates have lost a symbol they could point to, an example of a jury blaming a death on a gun.
''In terms of rhetorical significance, it's a setback for our side,'' Rostron said.
RELUCTANT QUEST
Pam Grunow, a slight, shy woman, is a reluctant advocate. She has granted few interviews and seems mostly concerned with making sure her two young children have a healthy upbringing without media intrusion.
But she took on the gun industry with the help of Montgomery, a larger-than-life trial attorney with a long résumé of courtroom victories. Montgomery was in England when Monday's ruling came out, lecturing at Oxford about tobacco litigation.
''Her primary objective was to make a difference in the gun industry, and she's done that,'' said Rebecca Larson, Montgomery's partner and co-counsel on the case. ``Anyone who makes these junk guns and Saturday Night Specials knows they could be next.''
Rostron said the next big cases for his organization are in California. In one case, cities including Los Angeles and San Francisco are suing the major gun companies for making defective products. In another, the family of a boy killed accidentally by a neighborhood child is suing gun maker Beretta Corp.
A third case in Brooklyn, set for trial in March, pits the NAACP against more than a dozen gun-makers. The civil rights organization faults the industry for making guns accessible.
NO LANDMARK
Renzulli also represents the gun manufacturers in that suit. He says the Grunow verdict, even if upheld, should not be considered a landmark. It involved a single type of gun, whose manufacturer is no longer in business.
''This jury found that the product is not defective. It has legitimate self-defense uses,'' he said. ``The bottom line is there is a need for self-protection and self-defense in this country, and not everyone can afford a $500 gun.''
Posted on Tue, Jan. 28, 2003
Verdict against gun firm in teacher's death is rejected
Judge: No liability if weapon was properly made
By NOAH BIERMAN
[email protected]
Two months after a jury gave gun control advocates a major victory, a South Florida judge took it away Monday, tossing out a $1.2 million award to the widow of a slain schoolteacher.
In an unusual split verdict, the jury found in November that the handgun used by 12-year-old Nathaniel Brazill to kill Barry Grunow was not a defective product, but that the Sunrise-based gun distributor still had to pay Pam Grunow to compensate her for the loss of her husband.
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga, who presided over the trial, ruled Monday that the distributor could not be penalized if the gun was properly made.
The case has been watched closely by both sides of the gun debate because it is one of the few against the industry to reach a jury. It gained further attention because of the nature of the crime. The killing of the Lake Worth Middle School teacher on the last day of school in the summer of 2000 made national headlines, one of a spate of campus killings involving firearms.
Both sides expect to continue waging this battle in higher courts.
'The plaintiffs' bar should be careful in filing these types of lawsuits because the members of the industry are willing to fight these cases to the end,'' said John Renzulli, a New York attorney who represents Valor Corp., which distributed the gun.
Renzulli also represents several gun manufacturers defending similar suits.
SYMBOL FOR GUN FOES
The $1.2 million jury award, while small by the standards of product liability lawsuits, had been savored by gun-control advocates because it represented a new avenue to attack the industry. Pam Grunow's attorney, Bob Montgomery, had led Florida's successful fight against Big Tobacco and has made no secret that he wants to similarly cripple the gun industry.
He labeled the small, cheap handgun used to kill Grunow a ''Saturday Night Special,'' claiming its only appeal was killing on the cheap. Jurors in this case agreed only in part, holding Valor Corp. 5 percent responsible for Grunow's death. Raven Corp., the gun's manufacturer, is out of business and was not named in the suit.
The school district and the gun's owner, a family friend of Brazill's, both settled out of court but were held a combined 95 percent responsible by the jury.
Labarga said the jury's November verdict contradicted itself.
On the one hand, jurors faulted Valor for supplying a gun without ''feasible safety measures.'' But on the same verdict form, jurors said the gun itself -- a small, cheap .25-caliber weapon easily clasped by a 12-year-old -- was not defective or lacking in reasonable safety measures.
That, Labarga wrote, ``rendered the verdict fatally inconsistent.''
Grunow's attorney will now ask an appeals court to either reinstate the jury award or to grant a new trial.
Allen Rostron, an attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, had joined Grunow in her suit. He said Labarga's ruling will not set legal precedent because it was attributable to a flawed verdict form that will not be used in other cases.
Still, he acknowledges that gun-control advocates have lost a symbol they could point to, an example of a jury blaming a death on a gun.
''In terms of rhetorical significance, it's a setback for our side,'' Rostron said.
RELUCTANT QUEST
Pam Grunow, a slight, shy woman, is a reluctant advocate. She has granted few interviews and seems mostly concerned with making sure her two young children have a healthy upbringing without media intrusion.
But she took on the gun industry with the help of Montgomery, a larger-than-life trial attorney with a long résumé of courtroom victories. Montgomery was in England when Monday's ruling came out, lecturing at Oxford about tobacco litigation.
''Her primary objective was to make a difference in the gun industry, and she's done that,'' said Rebecca Larson, Montgomery's partner and co-counsel on the case. ``Anyone who makes these junk guns and Saturday Night Specials knows they could be next.''
Rostron said the next big cases for his organization are in California. In one case, cities including Los Angeles and San Francisco are suing the major gun companies for making defective products. In another, the family of a boy killed accidentally by a neighborhood child is suing gun maker Beretta Corp.
A third case in Brooklyn, set for trial in March, pits the NAACP against more than a dozen gun-makers. The civil rights organization faults the industry for making guns accessible.
NO LANDMARK
Renzulli also represents the gun manufacturers in that suit. He says the Grunow verdict, even if upheld, should not be considered a landmark. It involved a single type of gun, whose manufacturer is no longer in business.
''This jury found that the product is not defective. It has legitimate self-defense uses,'' he said. ``The bottom line is there is a need for self-protection and self-defense in this country, and not everyone can afford a $500 gun.''
