Question: If a teenager steals a handgun from a family friend, and then uses that gun to murder his teacher, who is at fault?
Answer: Everyone except the teen.

A jury in West Palm Beach (it figures) awarded the victim's wife $24 million. The award was broken down as $12 million from the family friend, $10.8 million from the school board, and $1.2 million from the distributor of the gun, based on a 50/45/5 percent split in responsibility.

The CNN article sets the tone of the trial:

Attorneys for Pam Grunow had said the gun [an inexpensive model from Raven Arms, Inc.] has no purpose because it's too unreliable and that it's not used by collectors, law enforcement officers or the military, or for target practice, hunting or self-defense.

Grunow's attorneys had hoped for a verdict large enough to force companies to stop selling the Raven.

So, they weren't out for money, they wanted to further their anti-gun agenda. John Hawkins points out an interesting fact that CNN conveniently omits:

The jury didn't find any liability for Nathanial Brazill, who pulled the trigger. Brazill stole the unloaded gun and bullets from a cookie tin stashed away in a dresser drawer of family friend Elmore McCray.

How the jury could find the gun distributor and school board at fault, is almost as boggling as to how they could find Brazill 0% at fault for his own actions. But then again, these are the people who had trouble mastering the complex process of voting.