I did notice, by the way, via Instapundit that the jury verdict in the Grunow case was thrown out by the presiding judge. I discussed this case (or, more accurately, reactions to this case) in some detail here. But to recap: a jury in West Palm Beach found a gun manufacturer liable for distributing a gun that was used by a high school student to kill his teacher. The jury found this particular defendant bore 5% of the responsibility for the crime due to the fact that the weapon did not have a safety lock mechanism.
After all the posturing about the injustice of bringing this suit against the gun manufacturer, it appears the judge intervened on quite different grounds. Simply put, the jury didn't follow the law.
The plaintiff argued that the absence of a lock was an inherent defect in the gun. The jury didn't buy that but they assessed liability anyway because they were persuaded that guns shouldn't be sold without locks. That wasn't one of their options. Lacking any legal basis, the verdict should not and did not stand.
This ruling says nothing, it should be noted, about the potential liability of gun manufacturers for injuries caused by guns that are inherently defective. That's a battle that remains to be fought another day.
