Drudge: GUNMAKER HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER; JURY AWARDS $24 MILLION

Status
Not open for further replies.
When republicans take control of the senate, they had better get a protection bill signed ASAP to keep stuff like this from happening.
 
If this were a state with honest appellate courts, I'd say that it is obvious that this judgement would be overturned on appeal.

But this is Florida, after all.
 
bastiat, it's been so long since I've seen Dan Blather that I probably wouldn't recognize him, and I like it that way....
 
This is utterly the STUPIDEST thing I have ever seen.

It's even dumber than the jury that awarded all those millions to the lady idiot who sued Mc Donald's because she spilled coffee on herself and it was too hot.

What I want to know is how do cases like these even make it to court?
 
Expect this to get overturned. The jury found the shooter 0% at fault. How can someone convicted of murder in a shooting be found 0% at fault in said shooting? This indicates that the jury was motivated by factors other than actual responsibility, and is one of the rare instances where it will be reversed.
 
The Sunrise-based Valor Corp., distributor of the .25-caliber Raven handgun that Nathaniel Brazill stole from a friend and fired at Grunow, must pay $1.2 million after the jury decided it was 5 percent responsible for the death. The jurors said Brazill was 0 percent responsible.

They said Elmore McCray, the gun's owner, was 50 percent responsible and the school district of Palm Beach County was 45 percent responsible. Pam Grunow's attorneys had argued in their product liability suit that the $33 Saturday night special is defective because of its small size, easy accessibility and lack of legitimate purpose.


Excuse me but am I reading this right? The

shooter is 0% responsible
distributor is 5% responsible
gun's owner 50% responsible
school district 45% responsible?

OMFG!!!!!!
 
If this is true, & upheld, it is unbelievable. The article states that the kid that stole the gun, then fired it at his teacher & killed him had no responsibility in the crime.

Then their infinite wisdom determined that the distibutor of the gun was 5% responsible, because it was inexpensive & small. Another 45% was the school districts fault, with the gun owner bearing the remaining 50% of the blame.

They must be drinking the salt water down there....
 
bear in mind that in a civil suit, it is all about figuring out who is going to pay.

the kid is a minor and I doubt he can be held financially responsible for anything he does.

civil blame is SO SO SO different than criminal guilt and the two have nothing to do with each other.
 
Ok Pendragon, if that is so then howcome they didn't find the parents responsible for a certain percentage?

1. They made the piece of crap kid
2. The Kid has no meaningful purpose

Not arguing with you by the way. I'm just pissed at this jury. How in God's name they were able to assemble 12 people stupid enough to agree with this is beyond my comprehension.
 
This was the same county that was utterly befuddled by a buttefly ballot.*








* a class of 9th graders was able to understand and complete said ballot without the assistance of lawyers.
 
I'm surprised that theoretical "deep pockets" gun making corporation wasn't routinely assigned 100% of the blame.

Juries in a civil suit are there to say "La Di Da... a million here, a billion there."
 
Just where in the hell do they think the gun owner, who had the pistol stolen from his home, is going to come up with 50% of the award?


The idiots have taken over the place.
 
You have all just witnessed what very well may mark the beginning of the end of guns in the United States. If this is upheld, every anti-rights group will crawl out of the woodwork and "help" the victims sue manufacturers every time a crime is committed with a gun in a state that allows such suits. It will bankrupt the manufacturers and dealers even if hardly any awards are granted, just through liability insurance rates and cost of defending against friviolous suits.

Think I'm exaggerating? Ask anyone 20 years ago if they thought the tobacco companies would be forking over billions in damages. And the gun companies don't have even a small percentage of the money to defend themselves and settle suits as the tobacco companies.
 
GSB, the difference is all those guns are working as designed when they kill people. In light of that the plaintiffs are coming up with arguments like this absurd one, or the Chicago argument that the guns were irresponsibly marketed. Kinda like suing Ford for selling a car to someone who gets drunk and runs over ten people. In the tobacco deal the main point was that the companies knew the health risks of tobacco and concealed it to further sales. I don't think guns can be made a public health issue.
Many states and localities have legislated against allowing such frivolous lawsuits. This is the first success I've heard of, decided on pure liberal emotion, most other suits have gotten tossed out of court. This one will too on appeal.
 
Rich Lucibella ... while I know you are a very intelligent fellow, this verdict gives me cause to believe your own IQ represents a full 10% of the entire state's brainpower. What the heck is going on in FL? ;)

0% liability for the shooter. 5% liability for the manufacturer of the product. Incredible.

Frankly, it is this kind of development that actually can give one hope for tort reform. We are reaching a level of absurdity where the system will collapse of its own, illogical, impractical weight. Things often have to get worse, to get better.

There may be some anti-self defense executives (e.g. KMart) who may be attracted to this kind of foolishness ... wait until this kind of outrageous "justice" ends up goring their own ox. No business is safe when such illogic stalks our markets.

Regards from TX
 
Wow, Floriduh strikes again!

I concur with buzz, however I would add that I would anticipate a MCE or JNOV before the appeal. I would expect it to be granted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top