Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawyer for Newtown shooting survivor seeks to file $100 million lawsuit
NBC News ^ | December 29, 2012 | Mary Ellen Godin, Reuters

Posted on 12/29/2012 7:56:14 AM PST by Uncle Chip

MERIDEN, Connecticut -- A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

Pinsky said he filed a claim on Thursday with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., whose office must give permission before a lawsuit can be filed against the state.

"We all know its going to happen again," Pinsky said on Friday. "Society has to take action."

....................

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

It said they had failed to provide a "safe school setting" or design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

Pinsky said he was approached by the child's parents within a week of the shooting.

...................

(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lawsuit; newtown; sandyhook

1 posted on 12/29/2012 7:56:23 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Another greedy opportunist trying to get rich off other people’s suffering.


2 posted on 12/29/2012 8:00:17 AM PST by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Well, it took longer than I would have thought for the first of the ambulance chasers to find a greedy client and file a suit against someone.

Just moving from der Fuehrer parading the corpses for political gain to parading them for profit.


3 posted on 12/29/2012 8:01:58 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
By the time the lawsuit is settled Ubama's triple-digit inflation will have hit, and the $200-million will be enough to buy a loaf of bread.

Maybe.

4 posted on 12/29/2012 8:02:40 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism." --Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

The bloodsucking has begun.

My child heard cursing screaming and the shots and now ants 100 million dollars.

The parents should be thanking God their child only heard the cursing , screaming , and shots, but no they found a blood sucking attorney that see’s his gold mine in the death of the other kids.


5 posted on 12/29/2012 8:05:18 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Sue the Socialists for establishing “Gun Free Zones” and not defending your children in their established zones?


6 posted on 12/29/2012 8:05:18 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

This will probably end up as a class action suit when they all start dreaming of the dollars signs.


7 posted on 12/29/2012 8:07:24 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Any Judge worth his salt would throw this frivolous suit out of court along with the lawyer.


8 posted on 12/29/2012 8:07:24 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

At least Pinsky is suing the state and education department, not the gun industry. He should extend this to assert that “gun free zones” put children at increased risk of harm.


9 posted on 12/29/2012 8:07:49 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Impossible to create a “safe school setting” without armed security...

...suppose this lawsuit will strengthen the cause of the 2nd Amendment?

If so look for the Democrats to force a secret settlement—they are in the back pocket of the tort shyster union after all.

10 posted on 12/29/2012 8:08:46 AM PST by Happy Rain (Outlawing firearms because of Adam Lanza would be like outlawing free speech because of Bill Maher.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
They might have difficulty with that "safe school setting" depending on the extent of the security upgrades that reportedly were made in October.

==

design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

To design a response plan would require an expectation of an event. Not all events can be planned for.

==

Entry doors were locked after school began. The gunman, per reports, broke glass in the door to gain access.

Barring bullet-proof bubble-wrap, there is just no way to ensure 100% safety and security.

Such lawsuit(s) may force FED, state and local officials to address the issue of having armed personnel on campuses.
11 posted on 12/29/2012 8:14:16 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

He’s suing the goobermint. Good luck with that.


12 posted on 12/29/2012 8:17:13 AM PST by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Oooo! I’ll bet John (Silky Pony) Edwards is p*ssed he didn’t gegt to the trough first!


13 posted on 12/29/2012 8:24:43 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

It isn’t about the money. No, no. It’s about the childrens’ safety.


14 posted on 12/29/2012 8:24:52 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Ugh.


15 posted on 12/29/2012 8:26:50 AM PST by Dallas59 (America died a little bit more on 11/6/2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

There are several things that could have been done to make each classroom more secure though.

Have solid core doors and a good lock and bolt to close off the classroom from the inside. If there is a glass window on the door, mount a flap on it that can be closed while locking the door. Make any glass in the door wired security glass.

Several precautions could have been taken.


16 posted on 12/29/2012 8:28:41 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
Sounds like that's exactly what this suit is about ~ failure of the jackbooted thugs who run the people's republic of connecticut to provide a safe school.
17 posted on 12/29/2012 8:29:21 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

“Pinsky’s claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from “foreseeable harm.”
It said they had failed to provide a “safe school setting” or design “an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol.”

I think this is great. It’s the only way to use their own system to bring attention to the fact that the statists have assumed responsibility for, but do not adequately protect, the children. If the school statists wish to protest that they are not allowed by law to protect their wards, then so be it. Lets have the argument.


18 posted on 12/29/2012 8:33:01 AM PST by Dr. Pritchett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Another blood sucking lawyer waiting in the wings to reap a profit. Old Shakespeare had it right.


19 posted on 12/29/2012 8:33:01 AM PST by kenmcg (scapegoat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I think the first person that should be called to testify is the jackass who presented the notion that the best way to secure children is behind a locked door, badge access, and a bunch of unarmed women. Knowing what we know about Columbine, this is what they went with as their best plan??? Please explain yourself and take responsibility for you actions.


20 posted on 12/29/2012 8:38:15 AM PST by Dr. Pritchett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
The personnel at the school made it as secure as possible. The gub'mnt has building standards that left it less than secure.

This is Connecticut.

Even Virginia failed to address the physical problems and that would take a separate and very costly lawsuit, but there were some whoppers. That's one of the reasons that particular building is no longer used for classrooms.

So, let's start with the problems ~ in CT

(1) failure to use a full courtyard design so that all entry and exit can be controlled.

(2) failure to use bullet proof materials on the exterior ~ to wit, windows were exposed to uncontrolled external environment and were not bullet proof.

(3) failure to make school attendance laws voluntary so the burden of being on the premises fell back on the parents rather than the local school district.

(4) failure to have capable armed personnel on the premises prepared to repel an attack of this nature.

(5) and, most likely, door exit locking systems that are easily frustrated with a simple chain (something to be checked out of course).

Returning to VA a moment, others thinking about these aspects of the situation might turn their attention to wire reinforced glass ~ which KEPT THE COPS OUT OF THE BUILDING at Virginia Tech! They are good for deterring casual theft, but become part of the killing machine when dealing with a nut case!

21 posted on 12/29/2012 8:41:27 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

The father of this child chose to send the child to a school that lacked adequate security.

He is at fault.

It’s time to start being smarter. If you want your kids to survive, then don’t send them to a place where they are sitting ducks. Actions have consequences.


22 posted on 12/29/2012 8:45:33 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Or, they’ll just set up a fund for the taxpayers to “invest” in. The could have a Cabinet-level Department to waste money on such things.


23 posted on 12/29/2012 8:47:05 AM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Hey, their kid ain't dead and they may not need to work for a living anymore. What's not to like>sarc.
24 posted on 12/29/2012 9:03:40 AM PST by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Don’t forget to sue the manufacturer of the intercom.


25 posted on 12/29/2012 9:06:29 AM PST by ILS21R (Everything is a conspiracy. No? You're living in one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I thought the states have sovereign immunity. That means as long as a state agency or subdivision is performing their responsibility under state law, they’re immune from lawsuits.

Under the CT constitution and law, is the dept of education responsible for student safety?


26 posted on 12/29/2012 9:11:31 AM PST by meatloaf (Support Senate S 1863 & House Bill 1380 to eliminate oil slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Good point. I say let the socialist lawyers for the socialist parents tear apart their socialist school bureaucracy in their socialist courts. This is the sort of self-destruction that we need.


27 posted on 12/29/2012 9:12:17 AM PST by Dr. Pritchett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Maybe the other schools that see this fiasco with get the message in time!


28 posted on 12/29/2012 9:14:04 AM PST by Dr. Pritchett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Dr. Pritchett

BUMP! BUMP!


29 posted on 12/29/2012 9:16:19 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chris37
no, the state mandatory attendance law required the father to send his kids somewhere ~ and this is the school designated for his kids ~ and if CT had a mandatory school busing law, they'd look at his skin color first to see if he could go there, or had to go somewhere else.

Not once does CT require the children attend schools that are impervious to bullets!

30 posted on 12/29/2012 9:20:14 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

100 million dollars for what? For following hte LAW and NOT allowing guns on campus so that staff and guards could protect themselves IF a crazed shooter came onto campus and opened fire? For waitign for the police to show up liek they were LEGALLY suppsoed to do thanks to bleedign heart liberal ‘ideals’ that say it’s better for kidas to be massacred while awaiting the arrival of police because noone on campus is legally allowed to own guns? Is that what this jackass is suing for?


31 posted on 12/29/2012 9:25:29 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

I wonder what 'Jill Doe' will get after all of this sueing? I bet not $100 Million...

As the Bible said: 'First Kill the Lawyers'

32 posted on 12/29/2012 9:31:29 AM PST by ExCTCitizen (More Republicans stayed home then the margin of victory of O's Win...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
school districts should definitely be held accountable for their ridiculous and inept ‘gun free zone’ security strategy. $100 million? no
33 posted on 12/29/2012 9:36:48 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Do schools have any greater obligation than the police to protect individuals? The Supremes have settled that one in that the police do not have any such obligation.


34 posted on 12/29/2012 9:38:50 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Somewhere - Well he chbose to send them to a place that had inadequate security.

He could have chosen another location. Even out of state.

Would it be more expensive? Yes, but so what? You want your money or your kids? Which is more important to any of us?

Who cares what the state of CT requires? What did this father require?

The answer is not enough, and it cost him.


35 posted on 12/29/2012 9:40:01 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I agree. We, the law-abiders, have to think like the Bad Guys. We, the parents and grandparents, need to do a little tour of our schools, looking thru the eyes of a bad guy. And then we need to ask our schools “Why?”

Perhaps, the next time my school district asks for a million dollar bond to build a new performance center and gets an epic fail at the polls, they’ll rethink their priorities. If they’d said “we need cameras, we need to harden our buildings, we need to train our teacher to KEEP YOUR KIDS SAFE” the proposal would have passed.

As for this suit, I hope it’s really about waking people up and making the schools safer. I truly, truly hope the parents are really not just after the money.


36 posted on 12/29/2012 9:44:55 AM PST by blu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: chris37

The state of CT failed to inform him of the fact the public schools were inherently unsafe ~ they are all located within Biden Free Fire Zones!


37 posted on 12/29/2012 10:11:25 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
The fact that the law is totally inadequate to perform in a manner consistent with its declared intent is no excuse for actually obeying it. Any rational person could see that this school is surrounded by windows! That the madman chose the front door to try to get in irrelevant.

When the Gub'mnt created the Free Fire Zone they took on the obligation to enforce it ~ and they didn't!

Time to hit the state of CT and its Democrat voters with a ruinously crushing law suit!

38 posted on 12/29/2012 10:16:29 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

No, muawiyah.

He failed to inform himself.

If this has become a country of people waiting for government to do something for them that they should have done themselves, I am not going to waste even a second feeling sorry for them.

This man doesn’t even seem smart enough to learn from his mistake, instead he seeks to profit from it.


39 posted on 12/29/2012 10:22:44 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: chris37
CT commited an act of fraud against him and millions of others.

It's time for ruinous suits against that state ~ make it impossible for anyone to live there ~ reduce it to briar patches and berry bogs.

Populate it with wild pigs mountain lions.

40 posted on 12/29/2012 10:47:47 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

The only way to make it safer would be to have an armed police officer or well trained and armed guard, and we just wouldn’t want that, would we?


41 posted on 12/29/2012 11:11:42 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The one thing that Hollywood gets right about guns is that crminals will always get them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Well they would be suing for their own money, which I suppose is fine.

But no doubt, wild pigs and mountain lions would be infinitely smarter than the democrats that live there now.


42 posted on 12/29/2012 11:14:46 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Pritchett

intervening supervening criminal act.

year 1 law school lesson.

the lawyer is trying to do a proportionate liablity split.


43 posted on 12/29/2012 11:25:13 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chris37
much better for the ecological needs of the area, and image their off reservation feeding grounds in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

What's not to like about this suit ~ BTW, the school had 900 kids ~ so $100,000,000 per kid would be 90,000,000,000 ~ enough, perhaps, to make CT a TAX DESERT. No one could ever live there again!

44 posted on 12/29/2012 11:26:52 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

“Barring bullet-proof bubble-wrap, there is just no way to ensure 100% safety and security.”

Within twenty years, expect to see new schools constructed along the lines of prisons, or perhaps more likely the Nazi concentration camps (with high builds of barbed-wire fence around the perimeters, rather than outright walls).

All gates will be manned by security officers, probably toting “assault” rifles.

In the name of safety and security, of course….


45 posted on 12/29/2012 12:38:01 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Heh, but then they would migrate elsewhere and infect others with their malicious mental code.


46 posted on 12/29/2012 12:40:21 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Forwarned is forarmed eh!


47 posted on 12/29/2012 1:12:19 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
We won't go into it in depth but back in the 1920s post offices in the US and abroad were frequently attacked by leftwingtard mad bombers. Postal agencies world wide came up with some facility design criteria that could minimize building damage and virtually eliminate any injury to customers or employees inside.

Over time those changes were adopted and eventually the leftwingtards were forced to abandon the idea of bombing post offices.

That's what I see happening now ~ school security will be beefed up ~ designs will be changed to minimize injury ~ eventually the leftists and their running dog lackeys will go somewhere else.

Schools won't look like prisons.

BTW, just across the street from the Murrah building in OKCity there was a major postal facility. It never once occurred to McVeigh to bomb that building ~ and even if he had bombed it from the curb, the damage would have been remarkably minor.

48 posted on 12/29/2012 1:20:30 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

[[When the Gub’mnt created the Free Fire Zone they took on the obligation to enforce it ~ and they didn’t]]

Precisely- but they will never be held accoutnable for it- they will instead shreak so loudly abotu gun owners and gun manufacturers and hte mainstream media will do likewise, that ONLY innocent victims and law abidign citizens will be punished for their gross neglect of duty

Swell country we live in eh?


49 posted on 12/29/2012 9:20:26 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson