It seems like there may be some legal action against VT

[Eghad]

seems like there might be a state loophole that might allow tort claims against VT

When plaintiffs' lawyers get a hold of this, people may be surprised by their creativity," said Ashley Taylor, a former deputy attorney general who represented the state's colleges.

The state, its institutions and employees are largely protected from civil lawsuits by "sovereign immunity" — a doctrine rooted in a monarchical tradition that allowed grievances against the king only if he said it was OK.

"We do not expect perfection out of our government," said David N. Anthony, chairman of the Virginia Bar Association's civil litigation section. "Our government can make mistakes. If they do, we can't recover from them unless it falls into a category where they say we can."

Virginia's government has waived sovereign immunity in a limited fashion through the Tort Claims Act, which permits damages of up to $100,000 for bodily injury caused by the state's negligence.

Anthony said sovereign immunity will make it exceptionally difficult for anyone to successfully sue the state for more than that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424...gs_lawsuits;_ylt=AnQ5e_Xl0XEgwKBv6_.yFNJH2ocA

 

[TimRB]

Where there's a lawyer there's a way.

Tim

 

[johnbt]

Aw, what the hell, raise our taxes some more.

 

[buzz_knox]

Where there's a lawyer there's a way.

Look at it this way. The law used to be that the gov't could injure or kill someone accidentally or negligently, and absolutely nothing would happen. The gov't was immune from criminal or civil prosecution, so there was no recourse.

In Alabama, it's still that way as the wrongful death statute is punitive in nature. Since punitive damages cannot be levied against the federal gov't, an employee acting in the course and scope of his employment can kill a person negligently and the gov't only has to pay the filing fee for a motion to dismiss to have a case tossed. Most lawyers wouldn't even bring the motion to begin with.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Even if you could sue the government with a chance of success, what kind of "punitive damages" could you get out of a party that has a bottomless barrel of cash out of which to pay them? The only party punished would be the taxpayer who has to foot the bill.

It seems the only recourse would be personal civil liability for the bureaucrat(s) who created the policy which injured the plaintiff...but that's something none of us will see in our lifetimes.

 

[azredhawk44]

Even if you could sue the government with a chance of success, what kind of "punitive damages" could you get out of a party that has a bottomless barrel of cash out of which to pay them? The only party punished would be the taxpayer who has to foot the bill.

It seems the only recourse would be personal civil liability for the bureaucrat(s) who created the policy which injured the plaintiff...but that's something none of us will see in our lifetimes.

Or communal liability... If the Bumblefart Police Department kills my brother wrongly, I can sue that department and take money directly from their budget. They get no additional money from the tax base to pay the claims. Bumblefart PD has to close shop or reduce ranks as a result.

Makes them more choosy in who they hire, and react more strongly to unprofessional conduct.

 

[badbob]

Quote:
Even if you could sue the government with a chance of success, what kind of "punitive damages" could you get out of a party that has a bottomless barrel of cash out of which to pay them? The only party punished would be the taxpayer who has to foot the bill.

It seems the only recourse would be personal civil liability for the bureaucrat(s) who created the policy which injured the plaintiff...but that's something none of us will see in our lifetimes.

Or communal liability... If the Bumblefart Police Department kills my brother wrongly, I can sue that department and take money directly from their budget. They get no additional money from the tax base to pay the claims. Bumblefart PD has to close shop or reduce ranks as a result.

Makes them more choosy in who they hire, and react more strongly to unprofessional conduct.

If you sue the individual that killed your brother, he'll either respond differently next time or get into another line of work.

badbob

 

[ShortTimer]

There's more to it than just their failure to report the killer's mental problems. VA Tech was forcing students to disarm - therefore they must be providing for the students' safety. Why shouldn't they be held liable if they've denied self defense? Doesn't that mean VA Tech is stepping in to provide a safe environment? If they aren't providing the safe environment (obviously they weren't) they should be held responsible.

 

[The Law]

There's also the issue that they delayed warning the campus (and the means of warning). This cost lives.

There are many potential liability issues.

 

[johnbt]

Warning the campus of what? That there'd been 2 murders? They were looking for one victim's boyfriend.

The police here don't immediately warn the city when there's been a murder. I don't think they warn us at all.

John

 

[junkpile]

That there'd been 2 murders?

That the murderer was still on the loose, and that he was a member of the campus, and would likely still be on campus, "armed and dangerous".