Citing government immunity, the Connecticut Appellate Court ruled against two families who alleged negligence and inadequate school-safety protocols contributed to the death of their loved ones during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012.

The appellate court upheld a lower court's ruling granting summary judgment to the town of Newtown and its education board on the ground of governmental immunity, finding the plaintiffs made no specific allegations against any faculty or staff at the time of the shooting, and that school security guidelines imposed discretionary responsibilities, not a ministerial duty, on the defendants.

The school was initially named as a defendant, but plaintiffs later withdrew claims against it.

Plaintiffs were the families of Jesse Lewis and Noah Pozner, two elementary school students killed in the shooting. They argued top school officials knew there was a protocol to lock down the school and shut the doors to every classroom. But they said officials initiated no lockdown during the incident in which Adam Lanza killed 20 schoolchildren and six educators.

At trial, Danbury Superior Court Judge Robin Wilson focused her May 2018 decision primarily on government immunity. On appeal, the appellate court agreed with Wilson, and affirmed her ruling.

“The plaintiffs also claim that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment because the school security guidelines adopted by the defendants imposed upon the school faculty and staff a ministerial duty to act in a prescribed manner during the shooting,” Judge Thomas Bishop wrote for the appellate panel. “The language in the guidelines referenced by the plaintiffs contradicts this claim.”

Bishop added: “We agree with the trial court and conclude that no reasonable juror could have found that the school security guidelines imposed a ministerial duty upon the faculty and staff.”

In their April 17 appellate oral argument, plaintiffs claimed the defendants left the school's faculty and staff in a position in which they failed or could not adhere to mandatory school security guidelines. The defendants' rebuttal, however, was a successful motion for summary judgment stating they were entitled to government immunity pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes, and that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged negligence.

In the 19-page ruling, Bishop wrote, “The school security guidelines contained qualifying language such as 'may' or 'should,' which indicated that the school faculty and staff had discretion to exercise judgment in following them.”

Representing the families are Donald Papcsy and Devin Janosov, both with Papcsy Janosov Roche Trial Lawyers in Norwalk.

In an emailed statement late Monday to the Connecticut Law Tribune, Papcsy said: “We are encouraged that the Connecticut Appellate Court found that the trial court erred significantly in a major portion of its summary judgment ruling, and are looking forward to moving on to our esteemed Supreme Court so that they may have the opportunity to further hash these errors out, and remand this case back to the trial court to provide the chance these heroic families deserve to be heard, and keep future kids safer in the process.”

Representing the defense are Charles Deluca and John Cannavino Jr. of Ryan Ryan Deluca, and Thomas Lambert and Monte Frank with Pullman & Comley.

In an emailed statement to the Connecticut Law Tribune, Deluca wrote: “We are obviously pleased with the decision. Similar to the trial court decision, the Appellate Court's decision was thoughtful and well-reasoned. It was particularly gratifying that the Appellate Court noted that no reasonable juror could find negligence in the instinctive and heroically protective actions of the school staff that day.”

Newtown's town attorney, Cohen & Wolf's David Grogins, did not respond to a request for comment.

Read More: