South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Copyright 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, November 16, 2002
LOCAL
OBSERVERS DEBATE IMPACT OF DECISION IN GUN CASE
By Peter Franceschina Staff Writer Florida Correspondent Sean Mussenden
contributed to this report.
Gun control advocates call it a landmark decision that has the gun
industry trembling. The gun lobby calls it superfluous, what will
prove
to be an inconsequential footnote in a long legal war.
More impartial observers say the $1.2 million decision by a West
Palm
Beach jury against the South Florida distributor of the handgun
used to
murder Lake Worth teacher Barry Grunow is an incremental step that
could
be the harbinger of wider change.
Legal change is achieved slowly, decision by decision, said Matt
Bennett, an attorney and communications director for Americans for
Gun
Safety --a group that supports gun rights and reducing access to
guns by
criminals and children.
"Changes in law happen with a single step, and that was true
in the
tobacco litigation," he said. "It is significant when
you get a victory,
and this is a victory. It's an important victory but it is by no
stretch of the imagination a sea change."
How much of an impact the legal case will have on future gun
litigation depends on whom you ask, and neither side fighting the
high-stakes court cases is backing down. One thing is certain --
the
jury's decision was the first of its kind to hold a gun distributor
liable for not including an internal locking device on its products.
West Palm Beach attorney Bob Montgomery sued Sunrise-based Valor
Corp.
on behalf of Grunow's widow, Pam, arguing that the stolen Raven
Arms
.25-caliber semi-automatic used by 13-year-old student Nathaniel
Brazill
was a "junk gun" -- a cheap, easily concealed weapon favored
by youths
and predominantly used in crime.
Jurors placed the vast majority of the blame -- 95 percent -- on
the
gun owner for not locking it up and the Palm Beach County School
Board
for not having better security. That left Valor bearing 5 percent
of the
responsibility and liable for $1.2 million of the jury's $24 million
damages determined to Grunow and her two children.
"We set a precedent that other attorneys can follow. And we
hope
corporate America sits up and pays attention and puts some safety
measures on these cheap handguns," said one of Grunow's attorneys,
Rebecca Larson. She said the firm will seek to have the full $24
million
award imposed against Valor.
Boston University law professor Randy Barnett, a former prosecutor
and
a gun rights supporter, said he "would be surprised if this
theory of
responsibility is held up on appeal."
But if it does, he said, victories like this against the gun industry
could start to add up.
"It's one case, among many cases, and I don't see it as automatically
having a big impact," he said. "It isn't that it doesn't
have any effect
on juries or courts. It is by no means part of a tidal wave or trend.
The way you have a trend is to have a lot of cases like this, and
it
becomes a tidal wave."
Whether the volume of cases will be allowed to reach that level
is in
doubt. With Republicans again set to control both the U.S. House
and
Senate, legislation that would prevent gun makers, distributors
and
dealers from being sued when their products are used in shootings
is
expected to come to a vote early next year.
Lawsuits like Grunow's would be banned under congressional legislation
sponsored by Central Florida U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala.
"Congress is inches away from an immunity bill that would shut
down
litigation," Bennett said. "That was on a pretty fast
track until the
sniper shootings came down, and they pulled it. I expect that it
will be
back."
Until then, the impact of the jury in the Grunow case will be
debated.
Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, which was co-counsel in the Grunow case and spearheads
most of
the gun litigation filed by municipalities around the country, called
the case a landmark.
"It is actually amusing to watch the gun industry try to spin
this in
their favor when it has probably rocked them to their core,"
he said
Lawrence Keane, vice president and general counsel of the National
Shooting Sport Foundation, described the decision as "a hiccup."
"It's going to be appealed, and on appeal, the verdict will
be set
aside. It will have no consequences or repercussions."
Walter Latimer, who represented Valor, said Valor would appeal.
He
said the case should never have gotten to a jury because the claim
that
the gun was a defective product, which was rejected by the jury,
and
that Valor was negligent for not including safety features are barred
under state law.
"We never should have been here," he said. "There
was no legal
basis."
Florida Correspondent Sean Mussenden contributed to this report.
Peter Franceschina can be reached at pfranceschina@sun-sentinel.com
or
561-832-2894.