peacefuljeffrey
member
This is news in The Palm Beach Post today. I was very gratified to read it:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/06/02/c1b_valor_0602.html
This case has been dragged through the courts ever since anti-gun idiots came up with the idea that a gun that fired when a criminally violent 13-year-old pointed it in the face of a teacher and pulled the trigger was "defective" because it did so.
First, a jury found the gun distributor, Valor Inc., civilly liable for 5% of the total award of $24 million. Then that verdict was overturned. Now an appeals court has upheld the overturning of the award, but not on the same grounds as the trial judge overturned it initially. The appeals court is saying that Florida does not recognize the tort, that a company which legally sold a non-defective product is liable for its criminal misuse.
HURRAY! SOME FLIPPIN' COMMON SENSE EMERGES FROM A COURTROOM IN THE GOOD OL' U.S.A.!!
Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/06/02/c1b_valor_0602.html
This case has been dragged through the courts ever since anti-gun idiots came up with the idea that a gun that fired when a criminally violent 13-year-old pointed it in the face of a teacher and pulled the trigger was "defective" because it did so.
First, a jury found the gun distributor, Valor Inc., civilly liable for 5% of the total award of $24 million. Then that verdict was overturned. Now an appeals court has upheld the overturning of the award, but not on the same grounds as the trial judge overturned it initially. The appeals court is saying that Florida does not recognize the tort, that a company which legally sold a non-defective product is liable for its criminal misuse.
HURRAY! SOME FLIPPIN' COMMON SENSE EMERGES FROM A COURTROOM IN THE GOOD OL' U.S.A.!!
Blue skies,
-Jeffrey