Judge: Town, School Immune From Sandy Hook Shooting Claims
"Emergencies, by their very nature, are sudden and often rapidly evolving events, and a response can never be one hundred percent scripted and directed," wrote Judge Robin Wilson.
May 08, 2018 at 04:07 PM
4 minute read
A Connecticut Superior Court judge has ruled that Newtown and its school board are not liable in the deaths of 6-year-old boys Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner, two of the 20 children and six adults killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook School shooting.
“Emergencies, by their very nature, are sudden and often rapidly evolving events, and a response can never be one hundred percent scripted and directed,” wrote Judge Robin Wilson, adding that it's “a significant reason why police officers have been afforded broad discretion” in similar cases.
In the wrongful death action brought in the Judicial District of New Haven by Jesse's mother, Scarlett Lewis, and Noah's father, Leonard Pozner, the plaintiffs argued that the school and town “had a ministerial duty to create, enforce and abide by a collection of rules and regulations regarding the management of the school and to ensure safety” as outlined in state statutes.
In an amended complaint dated Sept. 1, 2016, the plaintiffs claimed negligence on the part of town and school officials for failing to provide school doors at Sandy Hook the could be locked from the inside, and alleged that the school failed to provide proper training and equipment to teachers and staff for lockdowns.
The plaintiffs also alleged the school failed to follow its own safety guidelines and had failed to remove a nonsafety glass window near doors on the premises, where Adam Lanza shot his way into the school and proceeded to kill elementary school children and teachers with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
The defendants countered that the school and town are protected by governmental immunity.
Wilson, granting defense motions for summary judgment, stressed in her ruling that the burden of proof was on the movants to “present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue.” In dismissing the claims, Wilson wrote that the revised complaint “is replete with allegations that negligence occurred as a result of the defendants' conduct. In other words, the plaintiffs allege that the safety protocols were not implemented and others were rendered ineffective because the board and the town failed to provide adequate equipment and training and staff to implement the protocols.”
Wilson noted that the assertion of negligence on the part of faculty and staff for “failing to implement and follow” safety protocols on Dec. 14, 2012, “sets forth a theory of liability not previously alleged.”
While Sandy Hook did have emergency “code blue” protocols in its guidelines, Wilson noted that language in the guidelines is discretionary. “The actions of the faculty and staff upon notification of a code blue lockdown are clearly described with qualifying language of 'may' or 'should,' indicating the ability to exercise judgment in performing the tasks,” the judge added. Different preparedness and emergency plans at the school have different requirements, and Wilson reasoned that guidelines “are meant to guide and inform [the] response to an emergency while retaining the ability to use judgment.”
Wilson's decision revisits the sequence of events that took place shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 14, 2012, and conveys an immediate and chaotic emergency, during which “The first 911 call was received at 9:35:39 a.m., and at 9:40:03, a single final shot, believed to be the suicide shot, was heard.”
Teachers who had been shot in the process had to make split-second decisions, she said.
“These were extraordinary circumstances, in which the individuals in room nine were forced to make split-second decisions while under attack themselves,” Wilson wrote. “In a situation so extraordinary and unique, and so chaotic and violent, it could not have been apparent that their actions or inactions were likely to subject the students and other faculty to imminent harm.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPike Fuels Agrees to Pay $2 Million Settlement to Resolve Alleged New Haven Environmental Violations
2 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Schools Score Again in Suits Against Social Media, Johnson & Johnson Subsidiary Seeks Sanctions Over Andy Birchfield’s Deposition
- 3Southern District Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Documentary Evidence Demonstrating that Insured's Misrepresentations Were Material
- 4People in the News—Nov. 20, 2024—Rawle & Henderson, Panitch Schwarze
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About ,' Says Jennifer Gniady of Stradley Ronon
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250