In a 15-page ruling, Virginia Supreme Court justices agreed that under the facts of the case, there was no duty for state officials to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.
Posted on 10/31/2013 4:51:57 PM PDT by HokieMom
RICHMOND -- The Virginia Supreme Court has overturned the jury verdict in a wrongful death suit against the state in favor of the families of two students slain in the April 16, 2007, massacre at Virginia Tech.
Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson were among 32 students and faculty members killed by student Seung-Hui Cho. Last year a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury awarded each family $4 million, an amount that was reduced to $100,000 each by a state cap on damages. The state appealed the verdict, arguing it should be overturned because of trial court errors.
In a 15-page ruling released this morning the justices agreed that under the facts of the case, there was no duty for state officials to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.
The justices dismissed, as moot, a cross appeal filed by the families seeking to have Charles W. Steger, the school president who was dismissed as a defendant in the lawsuit on a procedural technicality, reinstated as part of the suit.
Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, said, “Words cannot express the tremendous sympathy we have for the families who lost their loved ones in the Virginia Tech shootings of 2007 -- including the Prydes and the Petersons.”
But, he added, “The Virginia Supreme Court has found what we have said all along to be true: The commonwealth and its officials at Virginia Tech were not negligent on April 16, 2007. Cho was the lone person responsible for this tragedy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
In a 15-page ruling, Virginia Supreme Court justices agreed that under the facts of the case, there was no duty for state officials to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.
There is if they ban a person’s self defense by banning firearms.
I live in Blacksburg. I found out about the killing at Bible Study that morning. We figured it was an isolated incident. It never dawned on anyone that it could end up like it did.
I agree with the ruling. The idea that we can hold third parties negligent for the acts of crazy people is crazy. I have sympathies for the families but its not the university’s fault.
Of course, if the murdered had been Federal, State employees; Politicians, Judges or lawyers; different precedents would apply.
yup.
if they have a policy to disarm students on campus they sure the hell are liable.
It is perfectly reasonable to have believed it was an isolated incident after the first shooting in the dorm. Who could have imagined? This is a just ruling, in my view. My youngest son was in the next building over and experienced the SWAT team on the buildings and knew many of the slain students due to Campus Crusade for Christ. I’ve always believed the school did what they believed was best at the time.
ping
Indeed, another case of the gunfree zoning government having it both ways.
They act like they have an obligation to inform students about gun safety but not about the possibility of breach of such safety by criminals.
It is like for domestic violence where woman in America is now official custody of government but it is not liable if the restraining order does not protect her. This is because the reatraining order is meant for the government to make its own case without a care for the victim. In fact a dead victim reinforces its case.
“I’ve always believed the school did what they believed was best at the time.”
Kinda like Penn State and those little boys?
I’m not following your logic.
While I don’t agree with the idea of disarming citizens who own legal handguns. I do support the right of private entities to chose whether or not they wish to allow weapons in their establishment or on their property. The students and parents would know the policy when they chose to attend the University. If you want to carry a gun at a school find a school that allows you to do that.
if a business wants to they can, but in wisconsin they’re liable for your safety while on their premises. that’s the way it should be, otherwise you could defend yourself.
I think a business should only be liable for what they are in control of. If someone walks in and starts shooting that is a lot different then if someone walks in and the floor collapses and they die due to the owner not making sure his building safe for customers to be in or selling a customer a dangerous product.
There was no duty by the state to warn students of a threat by third parties?
If that’s the case, then the “state” can go eff themselves, and I’m going to arm my college age sons to the teeth. And if the “state” doesn’t like it, then they can either step up and protect and serve, or get the hell out of the way and let the boys defend themselves.
After the first shooting of a young women in her dorm room, the authorities erroneously assumed it was a domestic violence shooting, had the students in a campus-wide lockdown and were pursuing who they thought was the killer. They lifted the lock-down because they believed the shooter was now miles away.
How about for failing to enforce the gun free zone.
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.