Survivors of Pulse Nightclub Shooting Tested Florida's Negligence Law — and Lost
The Fourth District Court of Appeal found it was "legally irrelevant" that the mass shooter's employer had allegedly submitted a fraudulent psychological evaluation to help him get a gun license.
April 01, 2020 at 04:05 PM
4 minute read
Relatives of those killed in a mass shooting at gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando have lost a legal battle before Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, which on Wednesday dismissed their lawsuit against the security services company that employed shooter Omar Mateen.
The lawsuit tested the limits of Florida negligence law, which only allows claims against third parties in rare circumstances.
Mateen killed 49 people and injured 53 others June 12, 2016, in an attack he claimed was in support of terrorist group ISIS.
That sparked accusations of negligence from survivors and relatives of victims against Mateen's employer G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., which they argued owed a legal duty to the general public because Mateen had raised multiple red flags in more than 10 years of employment.
|'Unhinged' free agent
Mateen joined G4S as a custom protection officer in 2007, after being kicked out of corrections officer training for alluding to the infamous Virginia Tech school shooting and implying that he'd bring a gun to class, according to Wednesday's opinion.
The ruling said St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department also demanded G4S take Mateen back after he was subcontracted out because he repeatedly threatened co-workers, linked himself to terrorist groups al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Boston Marathon bombers, and expressed support for an Army major who shot 45 people in Fort Hood, Texas.
Instead of doing a psychological evaluation, G4S sent Mateen to a new location, where a former police officer quit because he was "unhinged and unstable" and often made homophobic and racist comments, according to the Fourth DCA.
But even though G4S trained Mateen to become "an expert marksman" and allegedly submitted a fraudulent psychological evaluation to help him get a Class G gun license, the appellate panel found Palm Beach Circuit Judge Donald Hafele was right to throw out the suit.
"We agree with G4S that 'Mateen was an individual with free agency who was outside of G4S's control and who committed crimes on his own time, with his own weapons and resources, at a location of his choosing,' " the ruling said.
Fourth DCA Judge Burton Conner wrote the opinion, backed by Judges Cory Ciklin and Jeffrey Kuntz.
The panel batted away an attempt by the plaintiffs to compare the case to a lawsuit over anthrax exposure, finding that guns and weapons training are " intangible" and can't be legally traced back to defendants the way toxins can.
"Firearms are frequently viewed as beneficial to society as instruments designed for protection, whereas anthrax is generally viewed as harmful to society as an instrument solely designed for terrorist purposes," the opinion said.
The Fourth DCA found it was "legally irrelevant" that G4S doctored Mateen's psychological exam for the gun license because the only purpose was to allow him to work as a security guard, not to buy weapons for private use—something he could have done without the license.
The panel also found that the plaintiff's failure to draw boundaries on the defendant's legal duty would have "severe public policy implications" as it could result in G4S being liable for all of Mateen's behavior, on and off-duty.
Defense attorney Andrew R. DeVooght of Loeb & Loeb in Chicago deferred comment to G4S, which said it was grateful the court recognized it wasn't liable for Mateen's crimes and stressed that the panel had to assume all allegations against it were true in order to rule. The company denies any wrongdoing.
"Mateen did undergo a proper psychological test and passed it. G4S simply inadvertently put the wrong psychologist's name on the form it sent in to the state," G4S said in an emailed statement. "G4S continues to have the deepest sympathy for the victims, friends and families who were affected by Omar Mateen's terrible actions."
DeVooght is handling the case with William N. Shepherd and Richard Hutchison of Holland & Knight in West Palm Beach.
Andrew Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach in West Palm Beach and Diana Martin of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach Gardens represent the plaintiffs with Kristoffer Budhram of the Law Offices of Conrad Benedetto in Jacksonville. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|Read the ruling:
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 AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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