Gun distributor sues teacher's widow for legal fees

The Florida Times-Union ^ | July 26, 2003 | Associated Press

[Pern]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A gun distributor that won a lawsuit brought by the widow of slain Lake Worth teacher Barry Grunow wants her to pay its legal fees but won't go after her personal assets.

The Valor Corp. is suing Pam Grunow as a representative of her husband's estate, the gun dealer's attorney Tom Warner said Friday. The company says it is entitled to recover legal costs because Grunow lost her lawsuit accusing the Broward County company of being responsible for her husband's death.

[Pern]

The parasite lawyer the convinced her that she should sue the Valor Corp should be counter-sued as well. That would help deter frivolous lawsuits.

[Joe Brower]

The phrase "turnabout is fair play" immediately comes to mind.

[jim_trent]

This is the best news I have heard in a long time. Collecting lawyers fees from the people who file frivolous lawsuits will do more to stop that than anything I can think of.

[mbynack]

I agree. People who file frivolous lawsuits should have to pay the costs incurred to defend against them. The whole purpose of this suit was to drive a perfectly legal business under while making a profit. I hope Valor wins.

[Amore]

Yes, there's got to be a downside for the clients & lawyers filing these ridiculous lawsuits. Right now, there's every incentive to sue and none to deter them.

(and I was the gun company, I'd go after that idiot widow's assets too; she's the one who made the ultimate decision to sue, she doesn't deserve such considerate treatment)

[stevio]

I agree that they should sue her.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

I don't want to sound hard-hearted, but screw her.

[AppyPappy]

Where you gonna find a lawyer to sue a lawyer?

[chuknospam]

Screw her, sue her. Then let her sue the stupid laywer that told her she would win big and become rich.

[RogueIsland]

Pam Grunow's attorney, Rebecca Larson, said the widow was worried about losing her house if she was forced by the court to reimburse the gun company

Oh, but it was no problem when she wanted to put the company out of business, right? None of their employees had houses they might have lost, right? No sympathy from me. Hope she loses. A few such object lessons might be educational to some people.

[ibbryn]

I don't want to sound cold hearted, but screw her, sue her and then take her house.
She made the decision to sue. She was probably pretty happy with the initial verdict in her favor. Other legit manufactures have gone out of business because they had to defend against such suits.

[Bluntpoint]

Like legal malpractice insurance, we need losing insurance.

A fund all attorneys pay into. When they file a frivlous suit and lose or if an attorney files a frivilous defense or counter claim and loses, fees are paid to the prevailing party out of the fund.

Like insurance, as the number of pay outs increase for a particular attorney, his premiums go up.

[wideawake]

I agree, to an extent.

Her irrational behavior could be charitably explained by the loss of her husband, but her greedy attorney should have known better. They should find out a way to go after him tooth and nail.

[blau993]

If there are any Florida FReepers who know more about the theory of this suit, I'd like to know more.

As a general proposition, litigants in this country bear their own legal fees and expenses, win or lose. This is known as "the American Rule." In England, the loser pays the winner's fees. This is known, not surprisingly, as "the English Rule."

There are some exceptions to the American Rule that exist by court rules and statutes in various states, but they usually require that the winning party prove that the losing party's position was completely frivolous. Low as that standard might be in Freeperdom when talking about suits against gun sellers, the courts generally treat it as a pretty high hurdle. The fact that a widow might lose her home, while getting little sympathy here, will resonate in court.

I am assuming there must be some Florida statute that allows this suit in the first place. I am also assuming there must be insurance that might cover any award, otherwise why bother suing in the first place after you have disavowed any claims against her assets.

As I said, if anybody knows more about this case, I am interested.

[pabianice]

[onyx]

Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga

His is a name to remember.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Like legal malpractice insurance, we need losing insurance

I disagree, paying for frivilous lawsuits should not be the collective responsibility of all Lawyers.

Filing a frivilous lawsuit should be saddled with the full burden of knowing that your actions carry sole accountability.

[Bluntpoint]

The American rule permits morally obtuse attorneys to practice in an environment where they are not accountabe for even their most egregious actions.

Attorneys rely on the reciprocal bad faith of other attorneys for their incomes.

[Bluntpoint]

Until you spread the burden, you are never going to see any real tort reform.

When law used to be a profession, the profession was self-governing and self-disciplining. Not any longer.

Law today is just another industry with clients as the raw materials.

[white trash redneck]

Best news I've heard all day. Hope the company wins. Hope somebody (company or widow) sues slimebag lawyer (there's an oxymoron).