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.
Arguments were then heard as to whether the remaining officials showed gross negligence. Attorneys for the defendants argued that the policy group did not show gross negligence, noting that it would have been displayed by simply not meeting following the initial shootings.
Arguments were then heard on whether the officials had a duty to warn the students of the shootings and whether officials had a duty to aid Cho more because of the “special relationship” that could have existed between Cho and employees of the Cook Counseling Center.
On one hand, the question has been raised whether or not Tech officials should have more fully warned students of the events of April 16.
Melis said during his arguments that in order to be held responsible for warning of events that do not constitute imminent harm, a special relationship must exist between two people. He said that the defendants had no knowledge that the plaintiffs were in imminent danger and that there was no special relationship between the two parties.
Hall cited multiple incidents earlier that academic year, one involving the appearance of escaped murderer William Morva on campus in August and two involving bomb threats made against buildings on campus the week before the shootings, as proof that university officials had previously felt the need to assume a duty.
The other issue involves the Cook Counseling Center’s duty to Cho. Arguments were heard as to whether center officials’ previous knowledge of Cho’s mental state should have been used to attempt to monitor or restrain his behavior. Attorneys for the defendants argued that a psychiatrist is only duty-bound if the patient “makes specific or immediate threats to harm an easily identifiable person,” so no duty was owed to the Tech community in general.
A final argument was heard as to whether the university actually had a policy in place at the time of the April 16 shootings that gave guidelines for dealing with threats to the community.
The judge could dismiss the suits if he grants either motion by the defendants. He could also rule that cases against some defendants may continue while others are dismissed.
A motion to compel Miller to respond to inquires about the case will also be heard in the near future.