Sandy Hook Families Plan to Appeal Newtown Immunity Ruling
Donald Papcsy, attorney for the families of victims Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner, told the Connecticut Law Tribune he believes he has a strong case on appeal, based on exemptions to governmental immunity.
May 08, 2018 at 07:24 PM
4 minute read
Sandy Hook Elementary School. Photo, Ron Frank/Shutterstock.com.
The attorney for two families of children killed in the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre vowed Tuesday to appeal a Superior Court judge's ruling that found the city and school board were not negligent in their death.
Donald Papcsy, attorney for the families of victims Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner, told the Connecticut Law Tribune he believes he has a strong case on appeal, based on exemptions to governmental immunity, and that the case is strong enough to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The courts were expected to decide in the next week which would be the venue to hear the case..
Papcsy's comments follow a 29-page ruling released Tuesday morning, which found the city and school board immune from litigation related to the 2012 mass shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead.
Families of two victims, 6-year-old students Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in August 2017, alleging safety measures were inadequate to prevent gunman Adam Lanza from making his way through the school's classrooms. It also alleged school officials failed to provide doors that could lock from the inside, and that staff lacked proper training for a lockdown.
The judge's ruling comes as a lawsuit by 10 of the families to hold gunmakers responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary School is on hold before the Connecticut Supreme Court, pending the outcome of a bankruptcy filing by firearms manufacturer Remington Outdoor Co. Inc.
Superior Court Judge Robin Wilson focused her decision primarily on governmental immunity, which she found granted the town broad discretion.
“On appeal, the court will have a chance to review what we believe are significant issues with the ruling. We believe either the Supreme Court or Appellate Court will agree with us,” Papcsy said. “Our operative complaint fully laid out the foundation that was necessary to overcome the immunity defense alleged in the defendant's summary judgment. And there is no question there are genuine issues of material fact—regarding immunity exceptions of imminent harm and identifiable victim—that a jury absolutely should have been able to consider.”
Papcsy said Wilson's decision ultimately holds that schools “can never be held accountable if they failed to implement protocols intended to keep our children and teachers safe in their public schools.”
“In this case and in cases like it, there are protocols in place specifically for these incidents,” he said. “But what the defense will say is that they do not have to follow them because they are completely discretionary, and if they are not followed, no one can hold them accountable. The judicial system has, to this point, agreed with that premise. But the parents who lost their children in this horrific event strongly disagree.”
Papcsy said officials never ordered a lockdown at anytime during the shooting.
Sandy Hook had an emergency “code blue” protocol in its guidelines, but the judge noted the language in guidelines are discretionary.
But Papcsy is gearing to challenge that notion.
“It's common sense that if you are going to have a lockdown procedure that you should provide keys to the teachers so they can lock the doors,” he said. “We were provided with evidence from different sources that this was not the case. Municipalities should not be able to escape accountability by saying that in a lockdown procedure, actually locking the doors is discretionary and not required.”
In her ruling, Wilson said the school district could never have imagined the massacre that took place 5 and a half years ago, before the term “mass killing” became a part of the federal lawmaking lexicon.
“In a situation so extraordinary and unique, 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,” Wilson wrote.
Attorney Charles Deluca, senior partner at Ryan Ryan Deluca in Stamford, and Monte Frank, a member of Pullman & Comley, represented the city and the Newtown Board of Education.
Frank declined to comment, but Deluca said he “was not surprised” by Wilson's ruling.
“I thought the court issued a very thoughtfully and well-reasoned decision,” he said. “We are pleased the court agreed with the arguments we put forth on behalf of the town and the Board of Education.”
Michael Marciano contributed to this story.
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
- 1'Politically Destabilizing': Trump Lawyers Say NY Criminal Case Must be Dismissed
- 2DLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
- 3Critical 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
- 4Southern District Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Documentary Evidence Demonstrating that Insured's Misrepresentations Were Material
- 5People in the News—Nov. 20, 2024—Rawle & Henderson, Panitch Schwarze
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