Appeals court rejects negligence claim against gun company

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The widow of a middle school teacher gunned down by a student lost an appeal Wednesday in her lawsuit against the gun distributor.

Pam Grunow's lawsuit argued that Valor Corp. was negligent in selling the cheap handgun and should be held liable for the May 2000 death of her husband, Barry Grunow.

He was shot in his classroom's doorway by Nathaniel Brazill, 13, who stole the gun from the man he considered grandfather. A jury that heard the case in November 2002 largely spared Valor from blame, ordering the company to pay $1.2 million, when Pam Grunow's attorneys had asked for $75 million.

The trial judge threw out the $1.2 million verdict and Pam Grunow appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal. But the appellate court ruled that a negligence claim was not supported by Florida law.

"We certainly sympathize with Grunow and recognize the tragedy of the events that transpired. However, it was Brazill, his grandfather, and perhaps the school that were liable, not Valor," the opinion said.

She could appeal to the state Supreme Court. Her attorneys and the attorneys for Valor did not immediately return calls Wednesday for comment.

The jurors at the lawsuit's original trial placed most of the blame on Brazill. They also cast blame on a man he considered his grandfather, Elmore McCray, who stored the unlocked and loaded gun in a drawer, where Brazill found it.

On the last day of school, Brazill was sent home for throwing water balloons, but returned with the gun. He shot Grunow because the teacher wouldn't let him speak to two girls in his class. Brazill is serving a 28-year prison sentence after being convicted of second-degree murder.

Valor's attorneys argued that the company cannot be considered negligent if someone uses its gun for a crime. But Pam Grunow's attorneys said federal officials 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.

When the judges heard arguments in the case in December, Judge Mark E. Polen questioned whether Valor had a legal duty to protect society from the weapons it distributed. He said while he did not disagree "philosophically" with Grunow's claims, the issues might better be decided by the Legislature, not the courts.

"There was no evidence in this case that Valor was setting up little stands on street corners in dangerous neighborhoods. They were selling this gun to licensed dealers. Like any firearm, or any weapon, knife, billy club, whatever, Chinese stars, they can fall into the hands of criminals," Polen said then. "Is that manufacturer or distributor liable to third-parties that were injured?"

___