Judge upholds negligence verdict in Virginia Tech
shootings and reduces award
By Tonia Moxley
381-1675
Roanoke Times
ROCKY MOUNT – On Wednesday presiding Judge William
Alexander upheld the March jury verdict against the state for Virginia Tech’s
handling of the April 16, 2007, shootings, but reduced the awards from $4
million per plaintiff to $100,000 each.
That may not be the end of the five-year-old case,
however. Both parties are expected to ask the Virginia Supreme Court to hear
their arguments, but for different reasons.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Bob Hall said after the
hearing that his clients intend to appeal to the top court to reinstate
university President Charles Steger as an individual defendant. Alexander
dismissed Steger on a technicality shortly before the case went to trial, leaving
the commonwealth as the sole defendant.
In a statement released after the hearing, Virginia
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wrote that while he’s pleased with the
reduction in the awards, "we continue to maintain that the court has
misapplied Virginia law in its finding that the commonwealth or its employees
could be liable under the facts of this case. Because of that, we are currently
reviewing our options."
Under the Virginia Tort Claims Act, negligence
claims against the state are capped at the higher of $100,000, or the amount of
any liability policy maintained to insure against such negligence. The state
has said in hearings and filings that no relevant liability policies are known
to exist.
On March 15, after eight days of emotional and sometimes
confrontational testimony, a Montgomery County jury awarded the families of the
late Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde $4 million each. They found that university
officials, including Steger, breached a duty to warn the women of reasonably
foreseeable harm from a gunman known by police and officials to be on the
loose.
That gunman, troubled Tech student Seung-Hui Cho,
shot to death two students in a dormitory room shortly after 7 a.m., then
opened fired in Norris Hall classrooms at about 9:50 a.m., killing 30 more and
wounding dozens of others. Pryde and Peterson were fatally shot in Norris.
Police who worked the dormitory crime scene, and
university officials convened to respond to it testified that they believed the
shooting was domestic, and posed no threat to the wider community. No warning
was issued to the campus, but an email notification describing a "shooting
incident" was sent minutes before Cho entered Norris.
The Attorney General’s office, representing Tech,
had asked Alexander in a motion to set aside the jury’s verdict and find in
favor of the commonwealth, based in part on a state Supreme Court ruling handed
down in April.
In Burns v. Gagnon, the court found that a public
high school assistant principal, who was told that a student might be in a
fight and did nothing to prevent it had no legal duty to intervene, or to warn
of the potential danger. The student was attacked and permanently injured.
"We have a case this court must follow,"
Assistant Attorney General Mike Mellis told Alexander. "We have the Burns
case."
"The Burns case is problematic. There’s no
question about it," Alexander said. "But there are enough factual and
legal differences" between the two that the state Supreme Court ought to
look at the Tech case and clarify the issues.
The judge went on to defend the verdict in the Tech
case, saying that it was supported by the facts. Furthermore, Alexander said,
the court properly found that Steger and Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum did
have a duty to warn Pryde and Peterson of foreseeable harm.
"Thank you all very much, and we’ll see what
happens," Alexander said.
The judge is expected to enter a final order in the
Tech case in the next month or so. Both parties then have 30 days to file
notice of any appeals.
No comments:
Post a Comment