Emergency personnel patrol campus after the April 16 shooting.
Share
With lawsuits against Virginia Tech and the town of Blacksburg looming, Illinois attorneys have said that they do not expect a similar situation with Northern Illinois University.
Among the differences in the two cases are the ideas that there were no security failures or communication lapses in the NIU event, contrary to what many feel happened on the Tech campus.
On Feb. 14, 2008, a former graduate student opened fire in a lecture hall at NIU, killing five students and wounding 16 others before killing himself. This came less than a year after the shootings at Tech on April 16, in which a gunman killed 32 others before killing himself. Chicago attorney Kathleen Zellner noted that the principles behind tort immunity could make it difficult for the families of those deceased in DeKalb, Ill., to make a case of wrongful death against the university.
"It gives immunity to schools unless you can show there was willful and wanton behavior on the part of the university for failing to prevent the event from occurring," Zellner said.
Similarly, the lawsuits at Tech focus on wrongful death and personal injury, two concepts that S. D. Roberts Moore, a member of Roanoke-based law firm Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, views as identical.
"A wrongful death case is no different than a personal injury case," Moore said. "The only difference is that the personal injury caused death."
Moore said that the basis for suit remains the same.
"The whole issue, in any case such as this, is whether or not the death of the person who is the subject of inquiry was caused through the negligence of a third party," Moore said.
Richard Cranwell, a Tech graduate and attorney with Cranwell, Moore, and Emick, P.L.C, said that those wishing to sue a university must go through an lengthy process.
The first step of such relates to an immunity clause rooted in pre-colonial English law, stating that a state cannot commit a legal wrong.
"There are a number of plaintiffs in these cases that have to get through a number of clauses," Cranwell said. "The first of which is the doctrine of sovereign immunity."
Cranwell denied further comment on the potential NIU case and current Tech lawsuits.
NIU officials have reported that thus far no lawsuits or notices have been filed. Though the state of Illinois allows up to two years for a lawsuit to be filed, Zellner said she does not expect any to be processed.
"It has a lot to do with immunity laws, and there are very few cases that survive that defense," Zellner said. "There are too many things that would defeat a lawsuit that a plaintiff could bring in."
Since the immunity clauses state that the plaintiff must shift the blame from the criminal to the university, Zellner thinks that this is a near-impossible task, as a jury would likely tend to place fault on the shooter and not the college's administration.
Though this may be the case at NIU, Zellner noted that it is different at Tech. In addition to different legal standards in the state of Virginia, the case made could be much stronger.
"My understanding of the shooting at Virginia Tech is that there was a delay in the response time, that the university had been notified that he had a mental problem, and that there were all kinds of information relayed to the university that was not at NIU," Zellner said.
At NIU, Zellner noted that the lawsuit would likely be defeated. She added that the university's quick response and lack of background information on the shooter would be significant in the court room.
Moore did not wish to comment specifically on either event, stating that his lack of knowledge on the case would make his response "irresponsible" as an attorney.
He did note, however, the benefit of settling any wrongful death case outside of court.
"If both parties come to the negotiating table with a reasonably clear understanding of the issues, they should be able to resolve the matter," Moore said. "The benefit would be resolution of the matter. Presumably, if you settle out of court, both sides are satisfied."
NIU spokeswoman Melanie Magara and attorney Peter Grenier, a member of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Bode & Grenier, representing the families of 25 deceased students on April 16, did not return calls from the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 13 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
The difference between NIU and VT -- the NIU killer just suddenly snapped without giving any prior warning signs of something being amiss. Police responded immediately to the scene -- entering the auditorium where the shooting was occurring within 90 seconds of hearing the shots. On the other hand, Seung-Hui Cho was giving off all sorts of behaviors and actions that were bizarre and suicidal prior to 4/16 and his case was just kicked around between college departments unsure of what they legally could do, as a result of their misinterpretation of FERPA and HIPPA.
Reply to this Top
Fred, that's a good point. But I think the bigger difference is the inaction during the two-hour lapse between the mass murder in Norris and the first shootings in West AJ. I don't necessarily believe that counts as negligence, but it certainly will be brought up if a court case ensues.
Reply to this Top
Any resonable person knows that if either the health care services or the university had somehow acted on information about Cho to have him removed from school, a mass of lawyers from the justice department would have swarmed on campus to sue for invasion of privacy and denial of civil rights. You know that was the case, and until Cho actually did "something" there was essentially nothing that could have been done to forstall his actions at some point.
Reply to this Top
Lee, you hit the nail on the head - Cho was not assessed to be a danger to himself or society, and so legally everyone's hands were tied. While it is unfortunate that he DID prove to be a danger both to himself and society, it doesn't justify preemptive crackdowns on people that we simply assess to be 'strange.' If we did that, you'd miss out on all of the great art from the beginning of the century - check out the Expressionists for proof of that.
Reply to this Top
Kyle and Lee: Firstly, a student was expelled from GWU for being a danger to himself several years ago. I strongly suspect that the GWU administration also felt that student to be a threat to others but could not release the information due to privacy laws. Second of all, a court did adjudicate Cho to be a danger to himself--and referred him to Cook for counseling (Cook may not have followed up, either no one knows due to privacy laws or they didn't). In any case, he did lots of things--such as stalking three female students. We've had people expelled for stalking before. It's nothing new. Could also be argued Cho asked for help in several cases. He did provide several warnings, all completely ignored--including a bomb threat in Norris early on April 16th. With selective mutism, it's not easy to say, "Hey, I need help." Consider that the University was getting ready to start a major fundraiser in mid-April of last year, and probably had an extra vetting process for communication to students. There's lots going on in this case, much more than "It was all Cho's fault why don't you blame him." That's as simplistic as Cho thinking he was striking a major blow to all of the people he was harassed by in high school by shooting these sixty people who AFAIK were the most innocent people (of any crime) he could've picked.
Reply to this Top
Also, really good article. Nice job, CT.
Reply to this Top
Imbeciles! Why can't you guys ever spell the words in the captions right!
Reply to this Top
First of all everyday, there is someone walking around campus, showing warning signs. But there is nothing that can legally be done unless your going to lock everyone up. Second of all the parents deserve nothing from the lawsuit. What happened to their children is unforgivable, but so are the things which happen on the streets daily. Such things as a child being shot as a gang passes them in a car, this behavior is known to occur, so why doesn't the sheriff owe them money since they know it was likely to occur.
Reply to this Top
NIU reacted they way they did because of what happened at VT.
Reply to this Top
I am exceptionally good friends with a number of people (not to mention close to having been there myself) here at VT that could easily be placed in to a similar category alongside Cho, having been diagnosed with various mental illnesses - and spending time with at least some kind of "therapist", if not having been a 'guest' at Saint Alban's themselves (or some similar facility, doesn't matter where). However, I could never imagine me or any one of these people doing anything violent or hurtful to others, let alone something as unthinkable as the acts that took place that day. It was unsettling and all too close to home to think of something as personal and intricate as my mental state and its history being used as a criteria to confirm the possibility or likelihood or future violence or outwardly deviant behavior that would render me unworthy of something as important as my home and my education. But, as hard as it was for me to realize that, I can not be unconscious of the fact that my friends and I are some of the lucky few to break the cycle, and even so it only takes the actions of one to do such damage, and mentally balanced people seem not to be the most likely to act in such ways. It is all drawn on a very fine line, which is why things like lawsuits have no place in such situations.
Reply to this Top
I just think that it's ridiculous for the families to file lawsuits against Tech. Seriously, it is not VT's fault that this shooting occurred. I understand that you lost a family member, but suing the crap out of the college that they loved is NOT the way to get resolution. That seems to me to be the opposite of what you should do.
Reply to this Top
John Woods: Unless I'm mistaken, it is not clear that the court ever told Cook Counseling Center that it was to expect Cho, nor is it clear that it is the CCC's responsibility to report Cho for noncompliance. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on Cho to show the court that he completed his "sentence" and received the required treatment.
Reply to this Top
To the issue of warning signs: NIU is a perfect example of how meaningless they can be. If we are to use Cho's example to say "quiet, socially awkward people who write dark poetry should be closely watched," then we must use the NIU events to conclude that "exhibiting no warning signs is now a warning sign. Seemingly normal people are not to be trusted."
Reply to this Top