Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/20/2007 4:30:21 PM EDT

The interview with Susanna Hupp got me thinking. She mentions that Virginia Tech is liabable for the deaths of the students since their "no CCW" policy effectively prevented them from protecting themselves. Did the school then become responsible for their protection? Would a lawsuit have a chance of forcing an end to the "no CCW on Campus" rules.

Dr Susanna Hupp on Virginia Tech?


pa-15
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 4:31:03 PM EDT
They probably have sovereign immunity.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 4:31:41 PM EDT
Good luck with that.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 4:48:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Will-Rogers:
They probably have sovereign immunity.


The Commonwealth of Virginia and its instrumentalities actually waived sovereign immunity and have the Virginia Tort Claims Act. The law is not entirely well-developed, but some states suggest that colleges have a "special relationship" with the students such that they owe a heightened duty of care. Think of it this way, the college knew this guy was wacko through his distrubing writings, odd behavior, etc. Should they have possibly expelled him from school for the safety of the others? Who knows, and who knows whether expelling him would have made the other student safe.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 4:54:07 PM EDT
I've been saying this for years, and you will see it come true, that places that don't enjoy sovereign immunity WILL be successfully sued in cases like this.

When they deny you your right to self protection, they are essentially assuming responsibility for your well being.

And no, defending themselves by saying you could go somewhere else won't work, not when they are a public accommodation.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 4:58:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:


And no, defending themselves by saying you could go somewhere else won't work, not when they are a public accommodation.


If ANY public funds touch the institution (not just colleges), then I think they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit CCW.

but then again, we have to fight for our rights.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:14:13 PM EDT

I am concerned more with the CCW issue. The discovery of the shooter's mental health issues and how the school delt with it is another matter. IIRC, 75 CCW weapons were locked in the school security section. Does anyone know if any of the victims were CCW holders or owners of those weapons?


pa-15
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:22:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2007 5:23:09 PM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:34:51 PM EDT
Court TV or Fox, I can't remember which one now, had an interview with an attorney that represented several Columbine students. He said, in no uncertain terms, to forget about suing (and winning) a lawsuit again the school.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:38:10 PM EDT
LIABABLE YOU SAY?

Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:59:32 PM EDT


Liberals have used the courts and liberal judges to forward their adgenda for decades. The right has been slow to recognize and adapt to their tactics, but has improved recently. Cases such as Parker vs DC and the SCOTUS ruling on abortion are wins for our side. I was hoping a case on CCW on campus would focus the debate and reveal the stupity of the whole "gun free zone" mentality. And maybe instantly reverse the whole concept.

I guess it was to much to hope for.


pa-15
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 7:19:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
When they deny you your right to self protection, they are essentially assuming responsibility for your well being.


"Gun free" zones are not denying the right to self protection - they are denying the use of a firearm as self protection. Nuances & semantics for sure, but I do a see a difference even though I tend to agree that CCW is a good thing and would help minimize this kind of slaughter.

Brian
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 7:24:07 PM EDT
While they are not actually denying your right to self protection, only prohibitiing you from using a firearm, could you not then argue that you would be basically rendered defenseless due to the disparity of force in this case?
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 7:26:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2007 7:27:30 PM EDT by SkullFarmer]

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
The Commonwealth of Virginia and its instrumentalities actually waived sovereign immunity and have the Virginia Tort Claims Act. The law is not entirely well-developed, but some states suggest that colleges have a "special relationship" with the students such that they owe a heightened duty of care.


I don't know a whole lot about Virginia law, but in W.Va., plaintiffs can recover up to the limit of the political subdivision's (the university's) liability insurance policy without sovereign immunity even coming into it.

It all depends on how the Virginia Supreme Court has handled the issue over time.

As to the special duty doctrine, there usually has to be some kind of affirmative act on the part of the political subdivision in order for the duty to be operative, i.e. a promise of individual protection, etc. Failing that, a court probably won't find any duty on the part of the political subdivision to protect any particular individual.


ETA -- not a lawyer, just a student.
Top Top