Drudge: GUNMAKER HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER; JURY AWARDS $24 MILLION
- Thread starter Pendragon
- Start date
- Status
GSB,
While I agree with you all that this is an apparently imbecilic ruling even with regards to the civil liability (and even more so in respect to the person from whom the gun was stolen), one should point out the differences between tobacco liability and this, especially as they knew what the effects were and yet continued to market them without warnings; something that would bring down the courts on them in any consumer goods suit.
Like so many have said, this will be reversed if only because the decision is so blatantly wrong.
While I agree with you all that this is an apparently imbecilic ruling even with regards to the civil liability (and even more so in respect to the person from whom the gun was stolen), one should point out the differences between tobacco liability and this, especially as they knew what the effects were and yet continued to market them without warnings; something that would bring down the courts on them in any consumer goods suit.
Like so many have said, this will be reversed if only because the decision is so blatantly wrong.
Baba Louie
New member
Hmmmm. I'm wondering why no one decided to go after the manufacturer of the BULLET, the Gunpowder or the brass?
Should I assume that the Appeal will be forthcoming?
Love all the headlines..."Gun Maker...responsible..."
The School Board? Deep pockets...hardly
The neighbor? A victim themselves? Liable? Homeowners Insurance rates have gotta skyrocket if you own firearms...
Jury selection pool...? Speechless
But then again, looking back at both of the OJ trials, one can only pray that we never have to be judged by a "Jury of our Peers". If ever brought to trial, I want only TFL'ers or GT members sitting on my jury.
Adios
Should I assume that the Appeal will be forthcoming?
Love all the headlines..."Gun Maker...responsible..."
The School Board? Deep pockets...hardly
The neighbor? A victim themselves? Liable? Homeowners Insurance rates have gotta skyrocket if you own firearms...
Jury selection pool...? Speechless
But then again, looking back at both of the OJ trials, one can only pray that we never have to be judged by a "Jury of our Peers". If ever brought to trial, I want only TFL'ers or GT members sitting on my jury.
Adios
To all of those slamming me because I brought up tobacco, please keep in mind the article. The suit succeeded. Regardless of your opinion of the merits of this case vs. the tobacco cases, the suit succeeded. Done deal. If it holds up on appeal, the ball has started rolling.
And for the record, if you smoke, it's your problem, not the tobacco industry's. The dangers of smoking have been well known for at least a hundred years. They called cigs "coffin nails" in the early part of the twentieth century. Ergo, anyone who wants to blame misrepresentations of the tobacco industry is someone who was willfully engaging in risky behavior and is looking for a way to cash in on his or her risky behavior. You will not find any sympathy for them from me. What, was the Surgeon General's warning on every pack for the last 30 years or so too difficult for them to comprehend? Were the companies guilty of falsifying research? Yes, and they should have been fined a REASONABLE amount for that crime. What we have seen is not justice, it's revenge by the Health/Enviro/Behavior-Nazi's against a fat, rich target. No more, no less.
And for the record, if you smoke, it's your problem, not the tobacco industry's. The dangers of smoking have been well known for at least a hundred years. They called cigs "coffin nails" in the early part of the twentieth century. Ergo, anyone who wants to blame misrepresentations of the tobacco industry is someone who was willfully engaging in risky behavior and is looking for a way to cash in on his or her risky behavior. You will not find any sympathy for them from me. What, was the Surgeon General's warning on every pack for the last 30 years or so too difficult for them to comprehend? Were the companies guilty of falsifying research? Yes, and they should have been fined a REASONABLE amount for that crime. What we have seen is not justice, it's revenge by the Health/Enviro/Behavior-Nazi's against a fat, rich target. No more, no less.
Not likely in a civil trial. If a case gets to the jury, the judge rarely rarely grants a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Judges also do not have the power, at least here in Arizona, to reapportion the percentage of fault of each party. I'm not so optimistic as the other posters regarding a reversal on appeal. It may turn out to be a one time whack jury verdict in a case where the judge should have reversed it on a motion for summary judgment (the best grounds for appeal). Don't be too quick to cry the world is falling. The trial lawyers have been trying countless rediculous theories to get gun mfrs/distributors on the hook and they finally found ONE jury to buy into it. Hundreds of similar suits have been dismissed in other states. I'll chalk this one up as a fluke, but of course keep my eyes open.
Under what law? . . . there is none. The Tobacco companies got what they deserved. They told their consumers until the bitter end that nictotine was not addictive when their own internal memos not only acknowledged that it was addictive and life threatening, but planned marketing strategies to exploit the fact that nicotine was addictive.t
There can be no rational analogy drawn between the tobacco cases and the gun cases.
DerGlockenpooper
New member
I guess car companies better watch out for being sued for drunk drivers' actions. And etc....
ddelange,
We both agree there can be no argument that no - absolutely no - comparison can be drawn between the tobacco lawsuits and these hateful suits against firearms manufacturers. However,
Decades before our benevolent guardian, the Surgeon General, concluded smoking was unhealthy, studies had shown it was. The earliest I'm aware of date from the 1940's. My mother, a lifelong smoker who, coincidentally, started smoking in the 1940s, assured us she knew before she started smoking that it was bad for her.
Consider the common experience of our U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors, and later, airmen, who over the years were supplied cigarettes as part of their rations - by the same government which later sued the cigarette makers for having supplied these same cigarettes to these same personnel. The men knew they were smoking "coffin nails." I guess the DoD (DoW, I guess) has no culpability for contributing to the deaths of these veterans.
Then, to turn to the taxes both state and fed.gov gleeflully seized over the decades from tobacco growers, and cigarette buyers, for selling this same evil product prior to deciding tobacco products - the source of so much revenue - were mala in se.
And not to mention the common sense idea that inhaling smoke was a bad idea - hello? What the hell do we do in a fire? We get out. In case we didn't already know, breathing smoke might harm you. Your choice.
Yes, the tobacco companies lied, obstructed, did all they could to convince us that smoking was as wholesome as eating carrots. Thing is, none of us - even back then - believed it. We smoked anyway.
My father died of emphysema brought about by decades of smoking Winstons. Did he, or any of his family, think R.J. Reynolds is responsible? No, sadly, my father is responsible.
He knew that. To his inestimable credit.
edited for typo.
We both agree there can be no argument that no - absolutely no - comparison can be drawn between the tobacco lawsuits and these hateful suits against firearms manufacturers. However,
Decades before our benevolent guardian, the Surgeon General, concluded smoking was unhealthy, studies had shown it was. The earliest I'm aware of date from the 1940's. My mother, a lifelong smoker who, coincidentally, started smoking in the 1940s, assured us she knew before she started smoking that it was bad for her.
Consider the common experience of our U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors, and later, airmen, who over the years were supplied cigarettes as part of their rations - by the same government which later sued the cigarette makers for having supplied these same cigarettes to these same personnel. The men knew they were smoking "coffin nails." I guess the DoD (DoW, I guess) has no culpability for contributing to the deaths of these veterans.
Then, to turn to the taxes both state and fed.gov gleeflully seized over the decades from tobacco growers, and cigarette buyers, for selling this same evil product prior to deciding tobacco products - the source of so much revenue - were mala in se.
And not to mention the common sense idea that inhaling smoke was a bad idea - hello? What the hell do we do in a fire? We get out. In case we didn't already know, breathing smoke might harm you. Your choice.
Yes, the tobacco companies lied, obstructed, did all they could to convince us that smoking was as wholesome as eating carrots. Thing is, none of us - even back then - believed it. We smoked anyway.
My father died of emphysema brought about by decades of smoking Winstons. Did he, or any of his family, think R.J. Reynolds is responsible? No, sadly, my father is responsible.
He knew that. To his inestimable credit.
edited for typo.
Gun owner not responsible?
Several people have questioned the liability of the gun owner. The quote is from the yahoo article.
If this is true, the loaded weapon was left unsecured and unattended.
How can he NOT be liable?
Frankly, his stupid butt should be behind bars for this kind of criminal negligence.
It's owners like this who damage all of our rights, and I for one, am not going to stick up for them. (If this is true.)
However, the last time I know of that such an idiot was held legally responsible in Florida (child took loaded weapon from beneath parents' matress and killed self or someone else with it, this was years ago, maybe early 90's), there was a huge public outcry. Parents had been through enough, blah blah blah.
So what? Rights come with responsibilities, and this guy was NOT responbible.
Can't aford a safe, get a cable lock. Can't afford a cable lock, take the !@$% magazine out of the thing and take it with you. At least one measure or the other might slow down someone who stole the thing. Nothing can be protected completely from a determined thief, but I'm pretty sure that some minimal level of responsibility could have prevented this particular weapon from being used.
Anyway, that's assuming that the above quote is indeed factual.
In any event a judgement against your average private individual for millions is pretty futile. They'll never collect it anyway.
As for the liability of the school district, I'm not quite sure what the basis was, there. It's not stated in either article I've read, both were basically sensationalistic garbage focusing on the 5% of the award.
I'm also curious as to why the parents weren't held responsible. I'm a native Floridian, and when I was growing up the parents were definately resposible for my misdeeds. Trust me, I was reminded constantly.
Several people have questioned the liability of the gun owner. The quote is from the yahoo article.
If this is true, the loaded weapon was left unsecured and unattended.
How can he NOT be liable?
Frankly, his stupid butt should be behind bars for this kind of criminal negligence.
It's owners like this who damage all of our rights, and I for one, am not going to stick up for them. (If this is true.)
However, the last time I know of that such an idiot was held legally responsible in Florida (child took loaded weapon from beneath parents' matress and killed self or someone else with it, this was years ago, maybe early 90's), there was a huge public outcry. Parents had been through enough, blah blah blah.
So what? Rights come with responsibilities, and this guy was NOT responbible.
Can't aford a safe, get a cable lock. Can't afford a cable lock, take the !@$% magazine out of the thing and take it with you. At least one measure or the other might slow down someone who stole the thing. Nothing can be protected completely from a determined thief, but I'm pretty sure that some minimal level of responsibility could have prevented this particular weapon from being used.
Anyway, that's assuming that the above quote is indeed factual.
In any event a judgement against your average private individual for millions is pretty futile. They'll never collect it anyway.
As for the liability of the school district, I'm not quite sure what the basis was, there. It's not stated in either article I've read, both were basically sensationalistic garbage focusing on the 5% of the award.
I'm also curious as to why the parents weren't held responsible. I'm a native Floridian, and when I was growing up the parents were definately resposible for my misdeeds. Trust me, I was reminded constantly.
GSB, not slamming you, and I never said I had the least bit of support for the tobacco crap. I recognized about 4 years ago that it was Pandora's box, before the first gun suit came out I figured the downward spiral would be cigs, alcohol, guns, then overly powerful cars in order of class action litigation. Got my order wrong. I just think the gun issue is different, this is not a statistic, just look what district it came from. It will go away, but there needs to be a few cases like this to keep gun-owners mad and to point out the other side's ludicrous position. The other difference between cigs and guns, I think all the cancer cowboys secretly wanted to get paid. Who benefits in the gun cases? There are no mega gun corps. like Phillip Morris to wring billions out of, no regular folks will benefit,so the interest is purely the political of the gun banners. A small, vocal, and blissfully illogical minority. ....Most of whom apparently live in West Palm.
Note to appellate jury. Sue the primer, it was defective because it went off when struck by such a small gun. YEAH, that's the plan!
Note to appellate jury. Sue the primer, it was defective because it went off when struck by such a small gun. YEAH, that's the plan!
Sergeant Bob
New member
Trial lawyers.
MrBigglesworth
New member
This case truly befuggles my mind!
In my opinion, the gun worked as designed, however, since it did not shoot itself, how in the living hell could the jury not find any liability in the trigger man! MIND BOGGLING! :barf:
In my opinion, the gun worked as designed, however, since it did not shoot itself, how in the living hell could the jury not find any liability in the trigger man! MIND BOGGLING! :barf:
BrianB, I agree to maybe some validity to your point but believe you are going overboard.
I should not have to lock and secure belongings when they are in my home to preclude being found liable if someone enters my domain, steals them, and misuses them. That is ridiculous.
Do you lock up your kitchen knives?
Do you have a baseball bat? Is it locked up?
Or - it that is too far fetched for you - do you feel that if someone doesn't remove the keys & lock their car when it is in their garage, that they should be found liable if someone breaks in, steals it, then commits a crime or has an accident & someone is hurt?
We need to be responsible as gun owners - I'll agree. But to concide that unless we render our guns inoperable or unaccessable, we are responsible for someone else's acts would be ludicrous if it wasn't so dangerous.
The next step will be the government telling you that no matter how secure your lockup is, it would be more secure at the local police station & they want you to keep your guns there.
I should not have to lock and secure belongings when they are in my home to preclude being found liable if someone enters my domain, steals them, and misuses them. That is ridiculous.
Do you lock up your kitchen knives?
Do you have a baseball bat? Is it locked up?
Or - it that is too far fetched for you - do you feel that if someone doesn't remove the keys & lock their car when it is in their garage, that they should be found liable if someone breaks in, steals it, then commits a crime or has an accident & someone is hurt?
We need to be responsible as gun owners - I'll agree. But to concide that unless we render our guns inoperable or unaccessable, we are responsible for someone else's acts would be ludicrous if it wasn't so dangerous.
The next step will be the government telling you that no matter how secure your lockup is, it would be more secure at the local police station & they want you to keep your guns there.
In the same way that my wallet sitting on top of my desk is stolen if somebody takes it. The prudent thing would have been to keep it less accessible, but to claim he holds some measure of responsibility for a 14 (?) year old kids theft and subsequent killing, is inane. This shifting responsibility thing has finally been taken to the extreme. The shooter is zero percent responsible, zero percent! And the manufacturer is partially responsible, for making a product that did exactly what it was supposed to do, shoot something.
I will, and I think you should be ashamed for not. Perhaps when somebody steals the keys to your car from your desk drawer and then kills somebody with your stolen car you would feel differently?
Kevinch,
I agree with your point (obviously) but I think it can be taken a step farther. Are you responsible if your car is sitting in front of your house? Or what if its in an empty parking lot?
Last edited:
Cuchulainn
New member
Kevinch,
Hear hear.
I know somone who had her car stolen about 5 years ago. They actually used the key in the magnetic case under the fender, which could be argued that she was partly at fault. Should she have been held liable because the jerks dented a parked car and abandoned it. No! (and she wasn't). A dent is not a death, you say? What if the thiefs had killed another driver? What if they had used it in a drive-by?
And about car companies being liable for drunk drivers. Isn't there an ongoing suit against Volkswagon that does just that? Or am misremembering?
Hear hear.
I know somone who had her car stolen about 5 years ago. They actually used the key in the magnetic case under the fender, which could be argued that she was partly at fault. Should she have been held liable because the jerks dented a parked car and abandoned it. No! (and she wasn't). A dent is not a death, you say? What if the thiefs had killed another driver? What if they had used it in a drive-by?
And about car companies being liable for drunk drivers. Isn't there an ongoing suit against Volkswagon that does just that? Or am misremembering?
J. Williams
New member
The real deal here....
With full sympathy to the widow (she was a victim twice, once as a widow and once as a client to a fast talking lawyer). Unfortunately when reading these articles the first thing that comes to mind is....
Show Me the Money!!!
And to BrianB
If any item that belongs to you is taken without permission - regardless of what or where - it's called stealing and last time I heard - that is a crime. I will never be convinced that this "criminal's" behavior was not premeditated nor that he "didn't mean to shoot" his teacher.
With full sympathy to the widow (she was a victim twice, once as a widow and once as a client to a fast talking lawyer). Unfortunately when reading these articles the first thing that comes to mind is....
Show Me the Money!!!
And to BrianB
If any item that belongs to you is taken without permission - regardless of what or where - it's called stealing and last time I heard - that is a crime. I will never be convinced that this "criminal's" behavior was not premeditated nor that he "didn't mean to shoot" his teacher.
Brett Bellmore
New member
According to Kopel, the murderer got off BECAUSE it was premeditated.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel111502.asp
Aparently the clinically insane judge decided that the only way the murderer could be held responsible in the civil suit is if the killing was accidental, and so directed the jury.
"In apportioning responsibility for Grunow's death, the civil jury found that Brazill bore absolutely no responsibility, because of the judge's instructions which prevented them from apportioning liability to Brazill unless the jury found that Brazill's killing was accidental. Instead, the jury found that the victim of Brazill's gun theft was 50 percent responsible, the school board was 45 percent responsible for failing to keep Brazill off campus, and the firearms wholesaler was 5 percent responsible. (The firearms manufacturer, Raven, is out of business, because of a fire in 1991.)"
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel111502.asp
Aparently the clinically insane judge decided that the only way the murderer could be held responsible in the civil suit is if the killing was accidental, and so directed the jury.
"In apportioning responsibility for Grunow's death, the civil jury found that Brazill bore absolutely no responsibility, because of the judge's instructions which prevented them from apportioning liability to Brazill unless the jury found that Brazill's killing was accidental. Instead, the jury found that the victim of Brazill's gun theft was 50 percent responsible, the school board was 45 percent responsible for failing to keep Brazill off campus, and the firearms wholesaler was 5 percent responsible. (The firearms manufacturer, Raven, is out of business, because of a fire in 1991.)"
- Status