The First Newtown Lawsuit.....Whoa.


PDA






xXxplosive
December 29, 2012, 11:29 AM
MERIDEN, Connecticut (Reuters) - A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

Pinsky said he filed a claim on Thursday with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., whose office must give permission before a lawsuit can be filed against the state.

"We all know its going to happen again," Pinsky said on Friday. "Society has to take action."

Twenty children and six adults were shot dead on December 14 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The children were all 6 and 7 years old.

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

It said they had failed to provide a "safe school setting" or design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

Pinsky said he was approached by the child's parents within a week of the shooting.

The shooting, which also left the gunman dead, has prompted extensive debate about gun control and the suggestion by the National Rifle Association that schools be patrolled by armed guards. Police have said the gunman killed his mother at their home in Newtown before going to the school.

(Reporting by Mary Ellen Godin Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst)

If you enjoyed reading about "The First Newtown Lawsuit.....Whoa." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryanxia
December 29, 2012, 11:34 AM
Figures. There's always someone who will profit. The sad thing is it doesn't even surprise me.

robert garner
December 29, 2012, 11:38 AM
People that file such suits and their lawyers should be imprisoned.
robert

castile
December 29, 2012, 11:42 AM
Its hard when its kids. One statement that got me was one 5yo that said Mom I am OK but all my friends are dead. I don't support a gun ban but this is not easy. I don't know how to fix any gun problems and if it was easy it would have been done by now. The presure is as high as its ever been, but I don't see the house caving in on this. Two years and its a new deal but if not new shootings I doubt that this will be an issue.

Baba Louie
December 29, 2012, 11:47 AM
...before a lawsuit can be filed against the state.Going to sue the State? Because a madman broke State Law or because State Law left everyone defenseless? Not against School District, Lanzas Mothers estate or Father or a Pharmaceutical company or the rifle and ammunition mfg or FFL who sold it or the Intercom mfg and installation company...? But the State? :confused:

Curious. I suppose they have the deepest pockets around. But they also have their own attornies.

and yeah, we all knew it was coming. I really figured the rifle mfg's Insurance carrier to take the first hit...

Carter
December 29, 2012, 11:57 AM
I understand the being left defenseless argument. Its a gun free zone that is easily turned in to a slaughterhouse. I'm glad to see they aren't suing gun companies, but I'm sure they are just going after money and not fixing the problem of the gun free zone.

xXxplosive
December 29, 2012, 11:59 AM
Actually, the Dems IMO aren't interested in protecting our kids either.....just using them for their political agenda of disarming the citizens...

gfpd707
December 29, 2012, 12:02 PM
Its hard when its kids. One statement that got me was one 5yo that said Mom I am OK but all my friends are dead. I don't support a gun ban but this is not easy. I don't know how to fix any gun problems and if it was easy it would have been done by now. The presure is as high as its ever been, but I don't see the house caving in on this. Two years and its a new deal but if not new shootings I doubt that this will be an issue.


There are no gun problems only people problems.

RKRCPA
December 29, 2012, 12:07 PM
Seems like this could be a legitimate civil action. The State Board of Education oversees the schools and bears primary responsibility for providing a safe learning environment. If security was lacking, those operating the schools should be held accountable.

19-3Ben
December 29, 2012, 12:08 PM
Going to sue the State? Because a madman broke State Law or because State Law left everyone defenseless? Not against School District, Lanzas Mothers estate or Father or a Pharmaceutical company or the rifle and ammunition mfg or FFL who sold it or the Intercom mfg and installation company...? But the State?

If the state is going to prevent or limit a person's ability to protect him or herself then the state takes on the responsibility to ensure that person's safety.

And yes, they have the deepest pockets.

DammitBoy
December 29, 2012, 12:11 PM
Agreed. I see this lawsuit as attacking gunfree zones.

Zeke/PA
December 29, 2012, 12:13 PM
If that Child could REALLY benefit, it would be one thing but the ones who are really going to make out are the Lawyers as usual.
I cannot fathom how anyone could try to profit from such of a really sad happening.

M-Cameron
December 29, 2012, 12:17 PM
Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm".


tell me, if the lawyer could have foreseen this shooting, why the hell didnt he say anything....?


this isnt the type of thing anyone expects....hell, this isnt even something anyone could have prevented if they wanted to...


lawyers really do have no shame.....

Odd Job
December 29, 2012, 12:21 PM
The lawyer isn't claiming that he could foresee this, he is making a claim on behalf of his client that the state could have foreseen it.

M-Cameron
December 29, 2012, 12:28 PM
The lawyer isn't claiming that he could foresee this, he is making a claim on behalf of his client that the state could have foreseen it.
i know, last i checked the state doesnt have a crystal ball.....

MachIVshooter
December 29, 2012, 12:51 PM
Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

This is where we see people do an about-face. Yesterday, schools were places ripe for tragedy. Today, people will begin to cite how rare such incidents actually are and that there's no way this could have been anticipated or prevented by the state. This person's greed will cause many to step back and use a little bit of much needed and long overdue critical thinking.

If the state is going to prevent or limit a person's ability to protect him or herself then the state takes on the responsibility to ensure that person's safety.

I agree fully, but that argument probably won't hold water in this case. Unless a staff member from Sandy Hook elementary who would have been in a position to do something comes forward and says they would have carried if it were allowed, there is no argument. A 6 year old cannot carry a concealed deadly weapon for protection anywhere in this country, gun free zone or not.

pendennis
December 29, 2012, 01:06 PM
There is also a "reasonableness" factor in this, that the defense willl surely raise. The defense will hammer home the idea that not all circumstances are foreseeable; that the school had already taken "reasonable precautions" in locking doors, etc.

I doubt that some of us will live long enough to see this one completely settled.

Cdigman
December 29, 2012, 01:18 PM
You know, there is a bit of truth to that...this is similar to the stories you hear about malls or stores not maintaining the lighting in parking lots, then getting sued when someone gets robbed on the way to their car, in the dark. My job used to be anti-gun, no firearms even allowed in employee vehicles, but several years back they passed legislation that stated that if a business outlawed legally owned firearms in personal vehicles, and did not allow for security to the employees, they could be sued if something happened. It makes sense. The state/school board had a reasonable expectation that a shooting was possible. In the same way that with the possibility of fire, classrooms have fire extinguishers, and fire drills, without armed security or a LEO presence, or drills for "Active Shooter Scenarios", I think a case could be made for negligence.

RockyMtnTactical
December 29, 2012, 01:20 PM
kind of surprised it took this long for someone to file the lawsuit... sadly.

MachIVshooter
December 29, 2012, 01:39 PM
The state/school board had a reasonable expectation that a shooting was possible. In the same way that with the possibility of fire, classrooms have fire extinguishers, and fire drills, without armed security or a LEO presence, or drills for "Active Shooter Scenarios", I think a case could be made for negligence.

Maybe. It's going to be up to the state whether they push their agenda at a starting cost of $100m, or if they take a step back and say that these incidents are "so rare that they are unforeseeable, virtually unpreventable, and the cost to society to take measures to ensure that it can never happen are far too great".

Either they set precedent for our argument that burdening millions under the pretense of offsetting the dangers presented by a statistically insignificant group in a free society is foolish and nigh impossible, or they start shelling out very large sums of cash in order to maintain their (naive) posture that prevention is possible in the form of legislative action.

leadcounsel
December 29, 2012, 01:49 PM
I think its just if it also sues the state for gun free zones. State may be immune but it sends a message.

Rembrandt
December 29, 2012, 01:52 PM
Liberal northeast is a sue happy culture, for them it's common practice to "lawyer up" and settle differences in court. Same thing happened immediately after the 9-11 attack. New Yorkers couldn't wait to get their "lottery ticket" for all kinds of issues related to the World Trade Center. Same thing happened with the hurricane that hit the Northeast.

It's the main reason I do not donate to charitable drives to help victims. These greedy people and their attorneys make me sick.

Robert
December 29, 2012, 02:09 PM
A lawsuit against the state of CT is not really a topic for THR.

If you enjoyed reading about "The First Newtown Lawsuit.....Whoa." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!