Valor gun lawsuit- WE WIN AGAIN!!!!


PDA






CentralTexas
June 1, 2005, 02:43 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050601/ap_on_re_us/gun_trial

If you enjoyed reading about "Valor gun lawsuit- WE WIN AGAIN!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
June 1, 2005, 03:05 PM
However, it was Brazill, his grandfather, and perhaps the school that were liable, not Valor,"

It's a shame that these "Durrrrrrrrr" statements are such a rarity. Good thing the court made the right decision.

Henry Bowman
June 1, 2005, 03:10 PM
IIRC, Valor was smart enought to make a Rule 68 Offer of Judgement (or the Florida equivalent thereof) meaning that since the Plaintiff received a judgement of less than the offer, the plaintiff is liable for the defendant's costs from that date forward. I bet that the Fl Sup. Ct. will affirm. What do you think El Tejon?

StopTheGrays
June 1, 2005, 03:58 PM
Valor's attorneys argued that the company cannot be considered negligent if someone uses one of its guns for a crime. But Grunow's attorneys said federal officials had told Valor 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.
Sounds a bit cold but it worked when the kid pulled the trigger. I did not read any other information that said the Raven ever went off by itself.

The decision is a no-brainer. Too bad we do not see every court come to the same conclusion. :(

geekWithA.45
June 1, 2005, 04:11 PM
they are to reduce and eliminate the civilian posession of arms by expending time, money, and resources of the armed civilian's supply chain.

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 04:19 PM
Again, I think sometime people look for a conspiracy where there is none. Most likely cause? Someone trying to make a quick buck.

But Grunow's attorneys said federal officials had told Valor 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.

IIRC, the most common murder weapon is none other than the S&W Model 10. I agree Gray, that if the gun is blowing up in people's hands, the company has the responsibility to make the gun safer. But not to keep it out of the hands of criminals, that is FFL, private sellers and the fed's jobs.

buzz_knox
June 1, 2005, 04:39 PM
Again, I think sometime people look for a conspiracy where there is none. Most likely cause? Someone trying to make a quick buck.

Or maybe they just read the memos from the anti-gun groups who have been advocating using such suits as a method of draining resources. Or maybe they understand that such suits have been a harassment tactic for years.

Some people are just as likely to ignore a conspiracy when it looks them in the face.

Hawkmoon
June 1, 2005, 05:07 PM
I don' think there was any conspiracy at work. Standard trial attorney strategy is to sue whoever has resources. If you're stone broke, you're effectively "judgment proof" because it isn't worth any attorney's time to take you to court. The widow (naturally) wanted to get something out of her husband's death. This kid and his grandfather probably don't have much money, so they sued the gun maker.

I'm reasonably sure the only motive here was to follow the money, not to make a socio-political statement by trying to bankrupt the firearms industry.

bigjim
June 1, 2005, 05:20 PM
I agree Gray, that if the gun is blowing up in people's hands, the company has the responsibility to make the gun safer

Ohh great another glock hate thread. :evil:

Henry Bowman
June 1, 2005, 05:23 PM
I'm reasonably sure the only motive here was to follow the money, not to make a socio-political statement by trying to bankrupt the firearms industry. Did the VPC or Brady Bunch fund any part of the lawsuit? Do we know?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 1, 2005, 05:41 PM
I'm reasonably sure the only motive here was to follow the money, not to make a socio-political statement by trying to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Who says that both motives can't be involved? I'm guessing that anytime the Brady Campaign's Legal Action Project (http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=60) is co-counsel on your lawsuit, there is a little bit more than common greed involved.

As for the use of spurious lawsuits to bankrupt the gun industry, you only need to read what gun control groups are saying to grasp that this is exactly their strategy and that these types of cases are how they plan to do it.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/
http://www.vpc.org/litigate.htm

Standing Wolf
June 1, 2005, 05:48 PM
I'm reasonably sure the only motive here was to follow the money, not to make a socio-political statement by trying to bankrupt the firearms industry.

When the Brady parasites participate in a law suit, you can bet your last nickel it's not just about money—except, of course, insofar as bankrupting firearms manufacturers makes firearms more difficult and expensive for commoners to own.

Langenator
June 1, 2005, 05:49 PM
If you read news stories (SAF has one) from when the original trial judge threw out the jury award, he did so because the jury award of damages was not consistent with the finding that the gun was not defective. This was in 2002, IIRC.

And if Valor does get their fees paid for by the plaintiff and/or the Brady's, that would be extremely sweet.

Countersuits for legal costs of frivolous suits are a damned effective weapon.

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 06:24 PM
Oops, didn't see where the Brady's were involved.

I still maintain that a lot of time, people are just after money, and are not trying to make a political statement.

Bobarino
June 1, 2005, 06:31 PM
federal officials had told Valor 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.

maybe they should put a Ruger style warning on the gun like "WARNING: DO NOT USE THIS GUN IN A CRIME. THAT WOULD BE UNSAFE."

Bobby

buzz_knox
June 1, 2005, 07:44 PM
still maintain that a lot of time, people are just after money, and are not trying to make a political statement.

The plaintiffs are often motivated by the smell of money, but the lawyers are often paid for by groups focused on the "cause," or volunteer out of an interest in whatever said "cause" is.

Cellar Dweller
June 2, 2005, 02:46 AM
I still maintain that a lot of time, people are just after money, and are not trying to make a political statement.

Maybe, just maybe: no sensible attorney would take the case, knowing it to be a waste of time and energy with no payoff?
Boy pulls trigger, gun fires, nothing defective there...unless you're:

a. morally bankrupt
b. hoplophobic
c. someone with an agenda
d. some or all of the above

Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga threw out the November 2002 verdict as inconsistent after jurors found the gun was not a defective product but still found Valor negligent. Jurors composed of Choice Ds. :barf:

foghornl
June 2, 2005, 09:37 AM
My humble 1/50th of $1..

hold a minute, while I put on my asbestos bloomers...OK..flame on

While it is indeed a tragedy that Mr. Grunow was murdered by the student (Brazill?), by trying to extort money/force the closure of Valor Arms, Mrs. Grunow reduced herself to BELOW the level of Mr. Brazill.

Phoenix/Raven arms and the distributor Valor, had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTIONS OF BRAZILL.

Maybe, just maybe, the courts are starting to come around to the side of actual critical thinking and logic.

BeLikeTrey
June 2, 2005, 10:13 AM
is this the gleam of hope??? ..."However, it was Brazill, his grandfather, and perhaps the school that were liable, not Valor" does this imply that the school's denial of teachers self defense implements is a liability? oh if we could take this ruling and run with it.... "perhaps the school is liable"

These tragic school shootings would come to a standstill if well trained teachers were armed..

Moondoggie
June 2, 2005, 11:01 AM
I think this court decision is what the lawyers among us would call a "precedent"...good for our cause if it isn't overturned. If it doesn't go to the FL Supreme Ct, count on it to appear in a Federal Court after the Brady's shop for a favorable Judge...they can't allow this to stand as it will damage their legal efforts nationwide.

The Brady Bunch are using a variation of the tried-and-true tactic of the ACLU...threaten somebody with a prohibitively expensive legal action unless you comply with our demands. In Brady's case, it's more of a long term strategy since their goal is to drive their adversary out of existence. (Said adversary being engaged in a legal business enterprise.) Our judicial system was never intended for this purpose. This is where "activist judges" come into play, and it's what's wrong with the concept. The Brady's are trying to accomplish through the courts what they can't via the legislative process.

Bubbles
June 2, 2005, 02:35 PM
Did the VPC or Brady Bunch fund any part of the lawsuit? Do we know?

Rebecca Larson, Grunow's attorney, is described as an "advocate" for Brady on her law firm's site.

Larson Professional Bio (http://www.wpblawyers.com/3132744.html)

dasmi
June 2, 2005, 02:41 PM
I replied to a comment regarding that article.

UNLOADED GUNS DO NOT KILL
by: gkisela2002 (269/M/THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN) 06/01/05 05:08 pm
Msg: 1309 of 1320

SHE SHOULD HAVE SUITED THE BULLIT COMP.

My reply.

Re: UNLOADED GUNS DO NOT KILL
by: jccsmith 06/01/05 05:27 pm
Msg: 1314 of 1320
4 recommendations

First, it's bullet.
Second, loaded guns don't kill either. People kill. A gun does not run around killing people. It requires a human to pull the trigger. Should we sue Ford everytime a drunk kills someone while driving a Mustang? No. In the same way we should not sue gun companies, or ammunition manufacturers when a criminal kills someone with a firearm.

peacefuljeffrey
June 2, 2005, 08:01 PM
I don' think there was any conspiracy at work. Standard trial attorney strategy is to sue whoever has resources. If you're stone broke, you're effectively "judgment proof" because it isn't worth any attorney's time to take you to court. The widow (naturally) wanted to get something out of her husband's death. This kid and his grandfather probably don't have much money, so they sued the gun maker.

I'm reasonably sure the only motive here was to follow the money, not to make a socio-political statement by trying to bankrupt the firearms industry.

Um, the widow got $300,000 in a settlement with the supposedly broke grandfather. The money came from his insurance company, I think.

If there was no socio-political statement involved, then Grunow's attorney, this leech Bob Montgomery, would not have been quoted in the article saying, "It's just a damn shame. We went into this with the idea of taking on the Saturday night specials. We were trying to right wrongs."

So, Hawkmoon, I don't know where you got the idea that this is NOT a conspiracy, given all the available information showing Brady's involvement, and the statements made over time by the relevant parties. Did you read the same article we did?? :confused: :uhoh: I think they knew full well they were not getting money out of this -- NO OTHER SIMILAR LAWSUIT EVER HAS!! So what ELSE but an agenda-driven thing could this have been?!!


-Jeffrey

Cellar Dweller
June 3, 2005, 01:48 PM
is this the gleam of hope??? ..."However, it was Brazill, his grandfather, and perhaps the school that were liable, not Valor" does this imply that the school's denial of teachers self defense implements is a liability? oh if we could take this ruling and run with it.... "perhaps the school is liable"

The school was liable because of the lack of security. Not that unarmed (re: several schools that frown on UNIFORMED POLICE having guns on school grounds) "security guards" and metal detectors will stop a determined person. It sure didn't stop the guy who killed a guard in the IL state capitol building...

What I really want to know is why no uproar and pro-2A related lawsuits and pro-2A legislation (immediately, not 10 years later) when:
a. CCW is prohibited on the premesis by the owner
b. owner gives the appearance of security, like cameras and unarmed uniformed security guards and metal detectors
c. something criminal happens anyway

If you enjoyed reading about "Valor gun lawsuit- WE WIN AGAIN!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!