A lawn mower maker has asked a judge to set aside a controversial $2 million verdict, arguing that the jury in the case acted out of passion and sympathy rather than a reasonable consideration of the facts.

At the end of a weeklong trial in June, a Roanoke jury determined that mower manufacturer MTD Products was responsible for the death of 4-year-old Justin Simmons, who was killed when a riding lawn mower rolled over him in 2004. They awarded $500,000 to each of the boy's parents, Ron and Kristie Simmons, and $1 million to Justin's younger brother Josh.

At the time of the verdict, jurors said they wanted to send a message to the lawn mower industry about safety problems with its products.

Wednesday, MTD attorney Erik Nadolink attacked the verdict from three angles. First, he argued that the evidence presented at the trial wasn't sufficient to support the verdict. The Simmonses' attorneys relied on expert testimony to contend that MTD could have anticipated that an operator would keep the mower in neutral when rolling backward down a hill, which keeps the blade spinning, rather that putting the mower in reverse, which shuts the blade off.

No evidence was presented that MTD's riding lawn mowers could be designed differently, Nadolink said. "An alternative design is not feasible simply because an expert says it is."

Second, he said the $1 million award to Josh Simmons, who was a year old at the time of his brother's death, was excessive and was proof that the jury acted out of sympathy.

Third, he asserted that the Simmonses' attorneys conspired with the attorneys of Orville and Roberta Reedy, the owners of the mower, "to make MTD the bad guy."

Brent Brown, an attorney for the Simmonses, said there is no such agreement. His clients and the Reedys still have not reached a settlement, Brown said.

The Simmonses' attorneys have asked Judge Clifford Weckstein to finalize the verdict exactly as the jury specified it.

The boy's death happened at a day care operated at the Reedys' house in Daleville.

As Orvil Reedy trimmed his lawn with a riding mower on April 22, 2004, Justin played in the yard. Roberta Reedy, who had been watching Justin, his brother and two other children, went inside to change Josh's diaper. Moments later, she heard her husband scream. As he'd tried to mow up a slope, the mower had rolled backward and run over Justin.

Originally, Justin's parents had sued both the Reedys and MTD for $6 million. But as presentation of evidence at the trial drew to a close, the Simmonses dropped the Reedys from the case, leaving MTD the only defendant.

During Wednesday's hearing, Weckstein asked attorneys on both sides for opinions on a hypothetical situation: If a judge finds that a $1 million verdict for a 1-year-old is excessive under Virginia law, can the judge do anything other than order a new trial to set a new damages amount?

Nadolink replied that the entire case should be retried.

Weckstein did not rule Wednesday. He will issue his decision as a written opinion, he said.

The June verdict attracted attention in national legal circles.

"This $2 million verdict is going to be passed along to the consumer," said Ted Frank with the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

"When you're punishing the manufacturer for user error, all you're doing is increasing the cost to the manufacturer," he said. "The money just gets passed on to consumers in terms of higher costs."

The verdict against MTD doesn't appear too outrageous when compared to similar cases, said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

"In this case the jury found that MTD could have designed the mower in a safer fashion," Turley said. "If their design does not protect against foreseeable misuse, it may be defective."