Follow continuous updates on Twitter.
A judge will issue a written decision by Jan. 15, 2010, on whether civil suits related to the April 16, 2007 campus shootings can move forward.
Hearings on two motions to dismiss a civil suit against Virginia Tech officials for their actions during the shootings concluded Monday afternoon in Montgomery County Circuit Court.
Specially-appointed Judge William Alexander, of Franklin County, oversaw the hearings.
The suits, filed by the families of Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde, two victims of Seung-Hui Cho’s shootings that killed 32 people on campus, seek $10 million each in damages each for the “gross negligence” of the university officials and mental health professionals named in the suit.
The defendants, represented Monday by Assistant Attorney General Mike Melis, filed motions claiming university officials are immune from suit under Virginia’s sovereign immunity, and also argued that they had no legal duty to warn the community of the criminal act of a third party.
In the hearings Monday morning, attorney for the plaintiffs Robert Hall non-suited Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum, university counsel Kay Heidbreder and Dean of Students Tom Brown.
The action means the three officials are no longer defendants in the suit, but the plaintiffs could bring suit again within the next six months. President Charles Steger, Provost Mark McNamee, former Executive Vice President James Hyatt, Dean for Undergraduate Education David Ford and Vice President for University Relations Larry Hincker are still named as defendants in the suits.
Hall said during a recess he did not have “hard evidence of their involvement in the decision not to warn the students” after the first two students were shot in West Ambler Johnston Hall.
Chris Flynn, the director of Cook Counseling Center, was non-suited prior to the hearings, but was present and testified on the operations of the center. Cook employee Sandra Ward was also non-suited.
Cook employees Cathye Betzel, Maisha Smith and Sherry Lynch Conrad are still defendants in the suit. Former director Robert Miller, who located Cho’s mental health records at his home in July, is also a defendant.
One motion from the defendants sought the dismissal of the case on the basis of the university officials being protected by Virginia’s sovereign immunity.
Arguments were heard as to whether Tech officials were actually acting as high government officials. Attorneys for the defendants argued that since Tech’s Board of Visitors is controlled by the state general assembly, the president and vice president’s positions are those of state officials.
Hall said during his arguments, however, that even if Tech’s policy group is protected by sovereign immunity, it could be negated by the idea of gross negligence.
Leave a comment 4 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.
When I came across the phrase "special relationship" when referring to Cho and the employees of the Cook Counseling Center as well as Assistant Attorney General Mike Melis' explanation of the above phrase, I cannot help but be reminded that we are responsible for our individual/personal safety and of those with us, not the police--all of them throughout the U.S. of A., including all college campus police nationwide--and/or government at all levels.*1*2*3*4*5
Reply to this Top
(cont) Now I have great respect for police, military, and other government officials who do everything humanly possible to protect us from criminal acts. What I'm saying is with the U.S. of A. resident population numbering at 308,000,000+ (this number changes every few seconds)*6, only 970,000+ of them consist of sworn police officers and civilians working for law enforcement throughout the country (970,588--675,734 S.O. plus 294,854 civilians...).*7 This leaves the remaining above population at 307,030,000+. With so little police, it's impossible for them to protect us all individually. Many law-abiding citizens in the U.S. of A. who own guns for protection, especially concealed-carry permit/license holders, understand this sad, harsh truth.
Reply to this Top
(cont) Based on the above facts regarding whos responsible for our individual/personal safety and the small number of police in this country, if the families of Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde are suing the remaining defendants for failing to protect Erin and Julia individually (which, from what I've been reading so far on these lawsuits, is not the case), they will lose. Please, in a polite manner, correct and enlighten me if what I've said so far is wrong and if I'm misunderstanding as well as leaving out a lot of details pertaining to the two families' lawsuits. And again, I have great respect for our police, military, and other government officials who do everything humanly possible to protect us from violent and deadly criminal acts. Thanks.
Reply to this Top
(cont) SOURCES:
*1.) Taking on Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection:
hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
*2.) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981:
gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf
*3.) DeShaney v. Winnebago City Deptartment of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
supreme.justia.com/us/489/189/case.html
*4.) Rhaney v. University of Maryland Eastern Shore, 858 A 2d 497 (Md Ct Spec App 2004):
www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2005/118a04.pdf
*5.) Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005):
ncdsv.org/images/SupremeCastleRockdecision04-278PZO.pdf
AND
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-278 (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINIONS INCLUDED)
*6.) U.S. POPClock Projection:
census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
*7.) Law Enforcement Personnel - Crime in the United States 2004:
fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/
Reply to this Top