Appellate Court Set to Hear Arguments in School Protocol Lawsuit After Sandy Hook Shooting
The Appellate Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday afternoon from attorneys for two Sandy Hook families and attorneys from the town and school board, related to proper protocols during the time the elementary school was under attack by a mass shooter.
April 15, 2019 at 06:05 PM
4 minute read
The attorney for two families of children killed in the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre expressed optimism Monday that the Connecticut Appellate Court will look closely at the exceptions to governmental immunity, and overrule a Superior Court judge who last year found the city and school board weren't negligent in the deaths.
Donald Papcsy, attorney for the families of Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner, told the Connecticut Law Tribune that he believes the exceptions for governmental immunity were met when Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 schoolchildren and six educators.
Assisting Papcsy is his colleague Devin Janosov.
The Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford will hear oral arguments Wednesday afternoon.
Superior Court Judge Robin Wilson focused her May 2018 decision primarily on governmental immunity, which she found granted the town broad discretion.
Papcsy, a partner with Papcsy Janosov Roche Trial Lawyers, believes the judge focused her ruling on when the killings took place, as opposed to when the shooting began.
“The problem with the judge's decision, in our opinion, is that she jumped forward and said they were under attack immediately, and that school officials had to make a [split-second] decision,” Papcsy said Monday. “But, there is a span of time when it's just gun fire that is heard and apparent before people are actually being shot.”
Papcsy said top school officials knew there was a protocol to lock down the school, thus locking all doors to all classrooms. But no lock down was ever called during the incident, he said.
“A jury should be able to decide whether or not the most reasonable thing to do in that circumstance was to run out into the hallway,” Papcsy said. The attorney said what school security, the principal and vice principal trained for was to press the intercom button and call for a code blue. “That would have allowed for all the teachers to be put on alert and to go into immediate lockdown,” Papcsy said. In addition to the staff allegedly lacking the proper training for a lockdown, the plaintiffs also allege school officials failed to provide doors that could lock from the inside.
“The purpose of a lockdown is to provide time for the police to show up on the scene and do what they are trained to do,” said Papcsy, who believes the exceptions of governmental immunity related to an imminent threat and identifiable victims were clearly met.
Representing the city and school board are attorney Charles Deluca, a senior partner with Stamford's Ryan Ryan Deluca, and Monte Frank, a member of Pullman & Comley.
Frank did not respond to a request for comment, but Deluca told the Connecticut Law Tribune Monday, “I don't have any comment other than to say I think that she [the judge] made a very well-reasoned decision, and we are hopeful the appellate court will agree.”
Meanwhile, as far as damages for the families, Papcsy said, “We want a jury to hear the case. We want the people of our community to decide the consequences for not keeping our children safe.”
In a related case, the Connecticut Supreme Court last month reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of nine families against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle used in the massacre. The gun makers have since asked for a stay of any litigation pending their request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the matter.
Read More:
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 AllDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Trending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
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