Lawsuits possible from Va. Tech shooting

[ServiceSoon]

ROANOKE, Va. - As the sixth-month anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre approaches, a lawyer representing 20 people killed or injured in the April shootings has began notifying the town and the state about possible lawsuits.

Blacksburg Town Attorney Larry Spencer said he received notices Friday from Peter Grenier, a personal injury lawyer in Washington, D.C., of possible lawsuits claiming negligence by the town and its employees.

A spokesman for the state attorney general's office said it received notice Friday from Grenier's law firm of a possible lawsuit on behalf of injured student Kevin Sterne. Tucker Martin said he could not say whether it was a possible lawsuit against Virginia Tech or the state itself.

No lawsuits have yet been filed stemming from the shootings on the university's Blacksburg campus, where mentally disturbed student Seung-Hui Cho killed two people in a dormitory and 30 in a classroom building before taking his own life.

The notice does not necessarily mean lawsuits will be filed, but such notification is needed by Tuesday, six months after the shootings, if lawsuits against a locality are to be filed in state court. A notice of a claim against Virginia Tech or the state must be filed within a year.

More than two hours elapsed between the dormitory slayings and Cho's rampage at Norris Hall, and police initially thought the first shootings were an act of domestic violence. Grenier's notices to the town alleged that Blacksburg police, who were among officers who responded, "failed to conduct a reasonably thorough and professionally appropriate investigation."

Grenier also contended that town officials failed to take steps to protect Virginia Tech students.

University students and employees were not notified of the first shootings for more than two hours, and Grenier said the e-mail notice sent by school officials "was inaccurate and incomplete" and "unlikely to sufficiently advise students of the serious risks posed to their safety."

Greg Gwaltney, whose son Matthew Gregory Gwaltney was killed, said he and the other families represented by Grenier's firm have been advised not to comment regarding the potential lawsuits. But he said many of the families planned to go to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to speak regarding the Brady Act, which requires a background check for anyone buying a gun.

Grenier represents the families of 12 people killed and eight who were injured in the shootings. A phone message seeking comment from Grenier was not immediately returned.

A second lawyer who is representing a family of one of the slain students also did not immediately return a phone message, but Spencer said he had received no other notices that lawsuits may be filed.

The town attorney said he was not surprised by the notices from Grenier. "The law firm had informed me to expect this," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Kristen Gelineau in Richmond contributed to this report.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_lawsuits

I'm not sure what to make of this at this point.

 

[TargetTerror]

From that article (which may or may not be accurate), the lawsuit is against the town for failure to respond/protect the students from the second attack. This is GOOD in my opinion, for a number of reasons:

1) That the town and not gun manufacturers are possibly going to be sued indicates that the sentiment among the victims' families is that this isn't the fault of gun manufacturers. This is good, as we don't want another lawsuit against gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products.

2) It is a long standing doctrine that towns and states cannot be held accountable for the negligence of their employees. Moreover, it has been held that neither the police nor any other government entity is obligated to offer any protection specifically to any given person or group of people. These cases will likely affirm that, I'd imagine, and bring that point to light for a lot of people who are oblivious to it.

 

[Car Knocker]

Was there ever any doubt that there would be numerous lawsuits filed as a result of this incident?

 

[JohnBT]

Blacksburg has a population of about 41,000. They might just end up owning the town government if they pursue legal action. I imagine some will and some won't. Some of the families are using the money from the Hokie Spirit Fund to endow scholarships and fund departments.

John
Class of '72
_________

From the CollegiateTimes.com

"Ken Feinberg, the administrator for the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, was appointed the charge by President Charles Steger because of Feinberg's work with the 9/11 memorial compensation fund. Feinberg said the goal of the fund was, "to receive unsolicited private donations from around the country for each eligible family or victim's support, and to use the funds as they deem necessary."

Feinberg described how some of the families are creating endowed scholarships in honor of their children, while others are giving some of the funds to entire academic departments. Feinberg was adamant the funds were not conditional, like the 9/11 memorial compensation fund, where families who wished to accept part of the fund had to sign a release waiving their right so sue.

"There is absolutely no precondition to accept these funds," Feinberg said. "They could turn around and use these funds to pay a lawyer to sue if they wanted.""

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm not remotely surprised. The University's reaction to the first slayings was to cover it up and say absolutely nothing about it until they could do some damage control. Alerting everyone about a possible murderer on campus doesn't seem to have crossed their minds, they were too worried about their image. I can't imagine MORE fertile ground for a suit! If the plaintiffs can show that an alarm or warning would have allowed some or all of the victims to get off campus in the hours between the first shootings and the massacre, they have the basis of a case.

it has been held that neither the police nor any other government entity is obligated to offer any protection specifically to any given person or group of people.

As to the town police, that's generally true. But as to the university things get more complex. The amount of protection they have varies from state to state, and the relationship of college to student is legally different from the relationship between local government and citizen. There are at least some "in loco parentis" duties to be considered in the first instance. These powers have often been used by universities to assert control over students, but they have a flip side in exposer to suits from the students.
If I was working for the university I'd be worried most about the decision to keep the first murders quiet. That seems fertile ground for a suit, since it involved a deliberate choice to keep information from those who needed it. I don't know how VA comes down on any of this though. Do they have a duty to warn students on campus of a murderer on the loose? What if they were trying to keep it quiet?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Maybe it is far fetched, but I think each and every person in the government of Virginia who had a hand in creating any laws, or grant of power to any entity, relating to a school's ability to prohibit firearms on campus ought to be sued as well. I would include any current government officials, legislators and etc. since they are in a position where they can or could repeal any such laws infringing upon the rights of any students, faculty, and staff that would have otherwise allowed them to defend themselves with arms.

They are the ones who infringed upon the right of these people to defend themselves by prohibiting them access to the arms that could have been used to save them. I think that might be a clear violation of 18 USC 241 and 242.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[JohnBT]

Well, how much is it going to cost me as a Virginia taxpayer? I think the school can only be sued for $100k per victim. I don't know if there is a limit per case on the town. Whatever they do, I'm not going to criticize. They're all family.

John
VPI Class of '72


P.S. - About that "They are the ones who infringed upon the right of these people to defend themselves"

A lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit, no matter what the school policy was.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The party at fault is not usually the target of lawsuits, it's the party that can pay the most. Lawyers use the law the same way a thief uses a crowbar, an instrument to take other men's property. Blacksburg VA did not shoot anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit, no matter what the school policy was.

Ah, yes, but it is unconstitutional law setting those age limits. That notwithstanding, I'm sure some of the profs were old enough.

Woody

 

[yesit'sloaded]

IIRC one of the students who died had a permit.

 

[Zoogster]

Actualy since looking into the subject I learned VA tech had quite a few older students. Quite a few people going back to school for a new career, and individuals back from the military etc.
Also it is 21+ so even if every student had started at 18 that means 1/4 of the student body would have always been eligable. The additional factors that add even more older individuals boost that fraction even higher. You also have students that are second or third year transfers from other colleges, something many do many places, so that boosts the percentage even higher.
Then of course there is employees. So I would venture that a significant number of the people on campus are over 21.

As said at least one of the victims actualy had a CCW.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I do understand that the police have no obligation to protect any individual and I also understand the legal basis for it. What interests me more is something else.

When I see a "Gun Free Zone" sign or know that a university has prohibited even those with concealed weapons permits from having a self defense weapon, I assume that the property owner or university know that criminals and lunatics are unlikely to respect that prohibition. My assumption, therefore, is that the property owner or university has taken extraordinary measures to prevent everyone from violating it.

What those signs and policies communicate to me is that the premises have been safeguarded to the level that the signs and policies indicate. Virginia Tech, having declared that it is a Gun Free Zone, assures me that it is indeed a zone that is free of guns--not only mine but everyone's.

I expect that at the very least there are armed guards (whether in uniform or not) at every entrance, that there are devices or dogs around and about the premises to detect weapons, that the contents of rooms are inspected frequently to ensure that none have been smuggled in or manufacturer in any on premises facilities, and that every other possible measure has been taken to prevent those who do not obey laws from harming those who do obey laws.

Otherwise the only conceivable effect of such policies is to limit the ability of law-abiding potential victims to resist superior force while increasing the ability of lawless potential criminals and lunatics to apply superior force to them. And that, surely, is neither equitable nor right. Nor could it possibly be what the signs and policies are intended to do.

It wouldn't surprise me if at least some of you laughed at my assumption but I think it's reasonable. I also think that it's what the students and faculty of Virginia Tech have a right to assume.

 

[JohnBT]

"Ah, yes, but it is unconstitutional law setting those age limits."

Not until the Supreme Court says it is. Read the Constitution.


Robert, Even State Troopers in riot gear couldn't completely shut down the Tech campus in 1970 during the student occupation of Williams Hall (among others that year) during the protest of the Cambodia invasion. There aren't enough town and school police, and armed guards in Blacksburg and Montgomery County, to begin to pull it off given the size of the campus. Maybe they should contract with Blackwater.

John
Class of '72

 

[The_Shootist]

A Victim With CCW?

I guess if that individual made a habit of griping to friends and family "he was legally allowed to carry but didn't do so due to VA Tech policies" then the university would take a pretty big hit in a wrongful death lawsuit. If he was a member of my family I'd sure try it and I'd bet I'd find a sympathetic jury in VA.

Could get grey though if he was quiet about it - VA Tech's lawyers could say he was indifferent / lazy to carry that day.

I just have a gut feeling that one reasonably well trained CHL holder with a .38 snub could have made a significant difference that day.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Not until the Supreme Court says it is. Read the Constitution.

I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?

You see, most people will read the Constitution, see the limits upon government, and plan and act out their lives accordingly. I see where government is forbidden to infringe upon my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I see any law infringing upon my Right to Keep and Bear Arms as unconstitutional. Otherwise, if I get arrested and put on trial for a violation of such a law, how would I know it's unconstitutional and, therefore, mount my defense accordingly?

The Supreme Court will not make that determination unless it's brought to them. The Court doesn't have the power to simply look at what our miscreantic Congress has done until such acts are brought to the Court according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause (2). A lot of people get to make that determination of constitutionality - beginning with Jane and John Q. Public with the guns - long before it gets to the Supreme Court. All the Court gets to say is we're right or we're wrong.

Let's look at a "line". We the People don't get to cross that line of the law. Our government doesn't get to get out of line in creating that law. I don't cross that line unless Congress has gotten out of line(the Constitution) and put that other line(the Law) in the wrong place.

Glad to be of service.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to prevent crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

 

[Jeff Timm]

The fact remains an official of the university, during the hearings about allowing CCW on the campus GUARANTEED that "hundreds of police with guns" were all the protection students needed.

I would consider that guarantee on record grounds for a civil action. I'm stunned and shocked that no one has sued.

Geoff
Who believes the University will claim the usual "Super Nazi-god above the law status" as usual in these cases. Cross reference the Godvernment of Washington DC.

 

[Robert Hairless]

That's pretty close to the direction I was trying to explain, Jeff. It's not exactly the same but pretty close.

I wasn't trying to say that universities or "Gun Free Zone" posters assume liability by denying concealed weapons permit holders the ability to have their self defense firearms on the property.

What I was trying to say is that when a university or "Gun Free Zone" poster publishes a statement that its property is free of guns the people who know that policy have a right to believe in and rely on it. Virginia Tech told the public that its campus was gun free. The public should have believed that it was, and the evidence is that the public did.

I suppose it's possible that the university and the "Gun Free Zone" poster mean that they only intend for law abiding people to comply with that policy because they know that criminals and lunatics won't. If that's what they mean, though, it's a dirty trick to play on people. State legislatures shouldn't allow it.

Here's some rough analogies to explain what I'm trying to say.

A motel owner could post signs around the premises saying "No Fires in this Building." When I enter that building I wouldn't worry about it burning down while I slept because I'd believe that the owner didn't mean only that I shouldn't set fire to it. I'd believe that the owner meant that I could feel safe from fire there. Because I could feel safe there, I wouldn't take precautions against potential fires that I might otherwise take, and even if I smelled something unusual I might ignore it without thinking "That's smoke from a fire in this building!"

Or a department store might post signs saying "Crime Free Store." On reading that sign I'd feel safer in that store than in those that weren't "crime free" because I'd believe that the store owner took all necessary measures to prevent criminals from committing crimes in that store. Of course the sign would be a warning to me that I shouldn't commit a crime there, and of course I wouldn't because I am a law abiding person. But the sign couldn't possibly have only that purpose. It must also be intended to put everyone on notice that the store has taken extraordinary measures to prevent crime.

In those two situations it's futile to sound a siren or use other general forms of communication to alert people when a fire or crime is in progress. If I were to hear a noisemaker in a building or store that was guaranteed to be free of fires or crime, the one thing that wouldn't occur to me if I heard the siren is that a fire or crime was in progress. It couldn't be. The signs said so.

In fact it is well known that Virginia Tech asked to be a "Gun Free Zone" because it wanted students, faculty, and visitors to the campus to "feel safe." That's good. Everyone wants to feel safe. I would have felt safe on Virginia Tech's campus because I know that the university wouldn't tell me to "feel safe" just to mislead me into dropping my guard for a carefully constructed fantasy.

So if I were the parent of a child who was contemplating enrollment at Virginia Tech I would have felt relieved that he or she would be on a campus in which the administration took extraordinary measures to keep all guns out.

Because the university already knew that State Troopers in riot gear couldn't bring order in the 1970s and because the university also knew that not all the law enforcement officers in the region could enforce its "gun free" policy, it's reasonable to believe that the university took even greater and more effective measures to ensure that its campus was gun free.

I don't know what those extraordinary measures were or might have been or could have been, but that's probably because secrecy was part of Virginia Tech's security plan to ensure that it was a "gun free" zone. The university said it was a "Gun Free Zone" and, were I a parent or family member of one of its victims--and one of the state of Virginia's victims too--I would hope that my attorney would demand that the university detail all of its extraordinary measures to make that campus "gun free." It's a reasonable question that deserves reasonable answers.

Were I an attorney, by the way, I'd subpoena some of the legislators who approved Virignia Tech's insistence that it be a "Gun Free Zone" and ask them what they did to ensure that the Virginia Tech campus would be safer than the rest of the state of Virginia.

 

[JohnBT]

Lots of good arguments. OTOH, there are many people who aren't buying it.


"The governor pointed out that most of the students injured in the shooting, and even some siblings of those who died, have returned to Tech.

"Why is that?" Kaine asked. "It's because Tech is a very good institution and Charlie Steger has a lot to do with that. " - Hampton Roads Pilot on-line

John

P.S. - On a legal note, the VA Attorney General has said the most anyone can do is sue the state for $100k, not the school. The schools have sovereign immunity.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?

I believe you are referring to judicial review. It is not expressly covered via the Constitution, but then again, many things are not covered by the Constitution such as case law. Even so, judicial review is a byproduct of Article III, Section one that sets up the SCOTUS and section two that says it has jurisdiction for all laws under the Constitution. More correctly, SCOTUS does not decide what the Constition says, but how it is interpreted and it has the final word in the matter as it is the highest court, as established by the Constitution.

 

[JohnBT]

"I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?"

For instance, it's referred to in the following section. Note the phrase "both as to Law and Fact".


"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..."


Reading the works of James Madison will give you a better perspective on what they intended when the Constitution was written.

www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/madison_archives.htm

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

JohnBT,

What you have pointed out only works to say that that passage might grant power to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court when taken out of context. Article III, Section 2, denotes the extent of the judicial power. It reads as follows:

The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ...

If you stop at "The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity," you miss the first limit spelled out in the Constitution which is "arising under this Constitution,..."

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.

The other passage from the Constitution you quoted from the Constitution is also out of context. That passage, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..." only denotes a particular segment of the division of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction - not power, but jurisdiction.

As for "both as to Law...", that law is the laws of the United States made under their authority - that authority being the power granted to Congress to make law in the Constitution(and state law as well, depending upon what ever case the Court is hearing). "(A)nd Fact" refers the the Court's power to determine who is telling the truth - to determine what is fact and what is not.

There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court power to interpret the Constitution.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[brickeyee]

"I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?"

See Marbury vs. Madison (1803)
It is well decided, and has stood ever since the decision.

The inclusion if Blacksburg will be thrown out quickly.
Virgina Tech is a land grant university, and is NOT part of any county, city, or town.
The schools police force is part of the Virginia State police.

Either someone did some poor research, or they are really stretching.

Virginia is not bashful about sovereign immunity.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

See Marbury vs. Madison (1803)
It is well decided, and has stood ever since the decision.

That is only true for the determination of the constitutionality of law. Many people confuse such determinations as interpreting the Constitution when it is merely the Court interpreting the law. Marbury vs. Madison (1803) says nothing about any power of the Court to interpret the Constitution. It couldn't. Only the Constitution has the grants power, and they are quite specifically spelled out. The Court saying anything in any case it adjudicates claiming power to interpret the Constitution is a blatant usurpation of power.

Woody

This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as a legislative branch of government, or as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood

 

[AndyC]

...he said many of the families planned to go to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to speak regarding the Brady Act, which requires a background check for anyone buying a gun.

Any bets on whether this will be pro or against Brady?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Any bets on whether this will be pro or against Brady?

That is why I entered this article without meaningful comment; because I don't know.