Small School Districts Wary of Parkland Shooting Legal Fight
A coalition of largely rural districts is urging the state Supreme Court to uphold a $300,000 limit on the Broward County School Board's potential liability in lawsuits stemming from the shooting.
July 03, 2019 at 01:24 PM
5 minute read
Rural Liberty County is about 500 miles away from Broward County.
But school officials in Liberty County and other small Northwest Florida counties are watching as the state Supreme Court considers a case that will determine how much the Broward County School Board could be forced to pay to parents and victims in the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
A coalition of largely rural districts filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold a lower-court decision that would put a $300,000 limit on the Broward County School Board's potential liability in lawsuits stemming from the shooting.
Attorneys for the coalition, the Panhandle Area Educational Consortium, wrote that a Supreme Court rejection of the strict limit could have a “devastating” financial impact on small districts if they ever face catastrophes such as school shootings.
The issue centers on the state's sovereign-immunity law, which limits how much government agencies can be forced to pay in lawsuits, and how the liability limits should apply when multiple people are killed or injured in incidents. While the lower court said the Broward County School Board's liability is capped at $300,000, attorneys for Parkland parents and victims say each plaintiff filing a claim should be able to receive $200,000, which could expose the school board to paying millions of dollars in damages.
“It is not only large school districts that face the threat of school shootings and other mass tragedies,” attorneys for the Panhandle Area Educational Consortium wrote in the brief Monday. “Small school districts, like large ones, also face this threat, on a daily basis. As potentially damaging as appellants' [the Parkland parents and victims] proposed interpretation could be for larger school districts, the impact on small school districts … could have a much more devastating fiscal impact.”
The legal question in the case focuses largely on whether the mass shooting was a single “incident or occurrence” under state law. If it is considered a single incident or occurrence, the $300,000 overall limit would apply; but if the shooting of each person is considered a separate occurrence, plaintiffs could each receive as much as $200,000.
The Florida Justice Association, a statewide group of plaintiffs attorneys, filed a friend-of-the-court brief last month backing arguments by Parkland parents and victims that the $300,000 overall limit should be rejected. The association also argued that many school districts have made a “deliberate choice” to self-insure, which leads them to taking on risks.
“A school district's choice to self-insure and retain the risk should not be rewarded with an interpretation of 'incident or occurrence' that allows it to escape the consequences of its decision,” the association's brief said.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Aug. 28 in the dispute and in another case that involves the same legal issue. The other case alleges the Florida Department of Children and Families acted negligently before Palm Beach County resident Patrick Dell in 2010 fatally shot four of his stepchildren and injured one.
The fathers of Dell's stepchildren filed a lawsuit against the Department of Children and Families, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal said the shooting was a single incident, rather than separate occurrences. The appeals court's decision in the DCF case was a basis for a circuit judge ruling that the Broward County School Board's liability should be capped at $300,000 in lawsuits stemming from the Parkland shooting.
A brief filed last month by the Broward County School Board said 23 lawsuits had been filed alleging that the school district and employees were negligent in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. The Supreme Court decision on the liability limits will likely affect how those cases move forward.
But the brief filed Monday by the Panhandle Area Educational Consortium said the decision could also affect the finances of districts such as Liberty County, which has only 1,304 students and four schools.
“The budget for preparing for risk-adverse events for school districts, especially small ones, has always been an issue of available funds,” the brief said. “Because school districts are not Walmart or a movie theater, and its inhabitants are required by law to be there, there is nothing a small school district can do to mitigate the risk by limiting the number of persons subject to the risk of collectively being in the same place at the same time and impacted by the same events.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
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
© 2025 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 AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readAs Unpredictability Rises, Gov't Law Practices Expect Trump Bump. Especially in Florida
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 2Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 3Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 4Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 5Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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