The jury handed down a verdict BUT

[slang]

The saga continues. I'm looking at the Valor gun suit in Florida and the recent ruling. The jury determined the gun distributor, Valor, was 5% liable for the death of Barry Grunow. The actual firearms aspect of this case is irrelevant at this point, the request of the plaintiff's attorney seems be unreasonable if not illegal. These are some quotes from the Sun-Sentinal that make me wonder.

"The jury said 45 percent of the fault for Grunow's death lies with the school board for allowing Nathaniel Brazill onto campus that day and 50 percent with the family friend who kept the gun unlocked in a dresser drawer, where Brazill found it."

"After the verdict was read, plaintiffs attorney Bob Montgomery said he would ask the judge to order the gun distributor to pay the full $24 million."

Do we have any lawyers here? Can anyone help me understand this? On what grounds does the lawyer propose to overturn a jury verdict without going through the appeals process? Besides the fact that the defendant distributes evil firearms and we all know they deserve to be sued out of business, I can't see any logic to this. I thought a jury verdict was golden (except for IRS cases).

Is this request a "shot in the dark " or common practice? Are any of these legal manuvers ever successful? Yikes!

<a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1114grunowverdict,0,1280127.story?coll=sfla%2Dhome%2Dheadlines"> Take a look for yourself </a>