The attorney is seeking permission for a $100 million lawsuit on behalf of a student who survived the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

If it lacks merit? Surely you're kidding! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I never comment on a suit that I know nothing about. I haven't seen the suit and haven't even read a newspaper story about the suit. Look at the link in the post but the article was gone. So yes, If it lacks merit.

As I said, it seems based on the hearsay conversation here -- and I assume no one here knows any facts about the lawsuit, only what relatively ignorant newspaper reporters claim -- that it's going to fail. But I know better than to rely on gossip on a silly whore board, that may or may not be based on a bunch of shit people think that they read in a newspaper, that is based on what some SOB that doesn't know shit from Shinola about the law may have written in a news paper somewhere.

And the way to fix this problem -- assuming we're both right -- and to fix the equally pernicious problem of frivolous defenses, is to provide attorney's fees to the prevailing party, whether it's the Plaintiff or the Defendant. Let there be a period where somebody can quickly and relatively inexpensively evaluate the suit, but then after 60 or 90 days and, a bit of written discovery, and a few deposition, the tab is running and the loosing side pays.

I don't believe anyone said that an "institution or organization should reasonably be expected to address every conceivable risk, no matter how slight," ... but when "institutions or organizations" (which includes the government) REQUIRES one's presence in a particular location controlled and monitored by those "institutions or organizations (which includes the government)" and make it a criminal offense not to remain or appear there ....

..then the "institutions or organizations" (which includes the government)" are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of those MANDATORILY REQUIRED to be present in the facility and are consequently liable if those persons become injured or killed while under the care ... and the risk is clearly an anticipated risk, regardless of how slight ... or costly a solution may be.

In comparison one may have to put a futurre value on the head of each person killed in the Connecticut incident and ask each parent how much their child was worth and ask each relative how much their family member who was a teacher or principal was worth. If the lawsuit becomes viable and is allowed, there may be some guidance on just how much the living child's life is worth in the future having to bear the nightmare images and the anxiety of the parents in wondering if their child was among the slaughtered.

Texas School Safety Center

The Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC) serves as a central location for school safety information. It provides schools with research, training, and technical support to help reduce youth violence and promote school saftey.



The center also helps schools create and improve emergency operation plans. It was formed in 1999 and was authorized by the 77th Texas Legislature in 2001. It is located in the Texas Education Code - Chapter §37.201.

• Texas School Safety Center

Please note the year it was formed: 1999.

I'm waiting for Skylar to jump all over you for dismissing the value of human life! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Look, I'm all for safety. That's what I do for a living, more or less. But you still have the problem of an intervening criminal act by a third party. In most States where the identity of that third party is known, that person's contributory fault gets submitted to the jury along with the fault of the school district and/or State.

So suppose the school could generally foresee a gun assault, and that they didn't take the appropriate precautions, and that the appropriate precautions would have prevented this attack, you still have the jury weighing that negligence against the fault of the shooter. It's a tough enough job to get the jury to fault the school. But to get them to put even 10% on the school vs. 90% on the shooter is a huge victory. 1% is more likely. It's still an incredibly, incredibly tough case.

Believe me, I've handled a few cases where there was a third party criminal act and very, very egregious actions on the part of the property owner. They're among the toughest cases to try and win.

And the way to fix this problem -- assuming we're both right -- and to fix the equally pernicious problem of frivolous defenses, is to provide attorney's fees to the prevailing party, whether it's the Plaintiff or the Defendant. Let there be a period where somebody can quickly and relatively inexpensively evaluate the suit, but then after 60 or 90 days and, a bit of written discovery, and a few deposition, the tab is running and the loosing side pays. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If you actually favor a robust loser pays rule, kudos to you. You must be one of the more ethical plaintiffs' lawyers who eschews "shakedown" suits. A great number of your colleagues certainly do not seem to share that view.

But what would be an example of a frivolous defense? Shouldn't defense counsel utilize any set of arguments deemed appropriate? It seems to me that it should be up to the plaintiff's counsel to poke holes in the defense if it's in any way inapt.

By the way, I've never before seen a lawyer continually misspell the word "lose." You've been doing so almost every time you've typed the word for a long time. What's up with that?

(Full disclosure: If it seems to you that I hold plantiffs' attorneys of the "ambulance chasing" variety in unusually low esteem, there's a reason for that. My Dad is a lawyer, although in his late 80s and long retired. He spent most of the latter part of his career as a law professor, but did some civil defense work here and there for a number of years. He loathes most of this area's personal injury plantiffs' lawyers, although he is careful to note that he does not paint with a broad brush and points out that there are some he likes and respects, and who pursue ethical practices.)

That being said, Happy New Year to you, TexTushHog!

Best wishes for a pleasurable transition to retirement, which as I recall you said that you are anticipating soon.

And may your cellar be stocked with a few thousand bottle of fine Bordeaux!

If you actually favor a robust loser pays rule, kudos to you. You must be one of the more ethical plaintiffs' lawyers who eschews "shakedown" suits. A great number of your colleagues certainly do not seem to share that view. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I do as well, and the Federal court system has a little more flexibility in that regard, as well as a little more freedom in the Judge to address frivolity.

Mr. Tush, have you ever had a lawyer on the other side of your case, whether plaintiffing or defending, tell you that you had a "good" claim or a "good" defense? Answer:_____;

but I have heard "friviolous" ... "ridiculous" .... and "sanctions" too frequently.

Report today that Attorney is withdrawing lawsuit ... but is "reviewing" the "evidence."

Report today that Attorney is withdrawing lawsuit ... but is "reviewing" the "evidence." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yup. Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/01/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

And the way to fix this problem -- assuming we're both right -- and to fix the equally pernicious problem of frivolous defenses, is to provide attorney's fees to the prevailing party, whether it's the Plaintiff or the Defendant. Let there be a period where somebody can quickly and relatively inexpensively evaluate the suit, but then after 60 or 90 days and, a bit of written discovery, and a few deposition, the tab is running and the loosing side pays. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Excellent idea. I think you are the only left-of-center person I have heard advocate that.

I think in patent cases where the plaintiff is a troll (i.e., owns patents but makes no products), the plaintiff should ALWAYS pay attorney fees and costs.

Report today that Attorney is withdrawing lawsuit ... but is "reviewing" the "evidence." Originally Posted by LexusLover

The subject attorney is continuing to "review" the evidence?

Very interesting...

A thought leaps to mind, and perhaps my take on this differs from some. While Mr. Pinsky "reviews" the "evidence," he may be able to get his name on the area's newspaper websites a few more times. If so, other local residents who imagine themselves to be damaged by some sort of tort might take notice. Even if Pinsky quickly backs off from pursuing a Newtown school shooting lawsuit, he may consider this little mission an unqualified success due simply to the flurry of publicity.

And one more little detail might help him expand his opportunities. He's already delivered the message that he may not be very selective about a potential lawsuit's meritoriousness.

The subject attorney is continuing to "review" the evidence?

Very interesting...

He's already delivered the message that he may not be very selective about a potential lawsuit's meritoriousness. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Although I am not specifically familiar with the immediate location of the school involved, given the size and community characteristics of the area, Connecticutt, I suspect that those who have not heard "through the grapevine" about the lawsuit, are brain dead and on life support.

Additionally, I have not looked for a copy of "the lawsuit," but it was my impression that he had requested "permission" to file the suit. Since I haven't seen the allegations in the lawsuit and I don't know the FACTS of the surrounding circumstances that might give rise to causes of action (other than the ever-changing news media reports) I would not want to conclude that this, or any, lawsuit is frivilous.

He may have received other evidence that either made his initial assessment questionable OR gives rise to causes of action not requiring "permission" from the district or the State, in which case he may be seeking to file the case in Federal Court. There could have also been "other parties" desiring to join in a lawsuit and other attorneys representing those parties, who are also interested in participating and have some input on the process.

And based on the caveats, all of the above is also speculation.

The "the message that he may not be very selective about a potential lawsuit's meritoriousness" is based on your assumption that his lawsuit lacks merit....as well as some other arm-chair lawyers who haven't seen "the lawsuit." In other words: Your message. Not his.

Additionally, I have not looked for a copy of "the lawsuit," but it was my impression that he had requested "permission" to file the suit. Since I haven't seen the allegations in the lawsuit and I don't know the FACTS of the surrounding circumstances that might give rise to causes of action (other than the ever-changing news media reports) I would not want to conclude that this, or any, lawsuit is frivilous. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Be that as it may, I have a bit of trouble envisioning circumstances under which the state could reasonably be held liable for the actions of a crazed lunatic who charges into a school and begins shooting people. That might not be the case if the state had ridiculously lax gun laws in comparison with other states, or if it were considered usual and customary for states to compel the presence of armed patrols in every school at all times, and the state in question (in this case Connecticut) deviated from the norm. But neither is the case.

It seems to me that assumptions to the contrary imply tacit approval of the notion that it's perfectly OK to sue any deep-pocketed entity at any time for any reason, irrespective of the facts. (Of course, some plaintiffs' attorneys do seem to think that!)

In other words: Your message. Not his. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, and that's why I said that he may consider this little mission an "unqualified success due simply to the flurry of publicity," and that he may "not be very selective about a potential lawsuit's meritoriousness."

Thus it should be clear that my latter statements were simply conjecture.

Just tossing a couple of thoughts into the mix, since kibitzing on an SHMB seems popular around here!

...I have a bit of trouble envisioning circumstances under which the state could reasonably be held liable for the actions of a crazed lunatic who charges into a school and begins shooting people.

It seems to me that assumptions to the contrary imply tacit approval of the notion that it's perfectly OK to sue any deep-pocketed entity at any time for any reason, irrespective of the facts. (Of course, some plaintiffs' attorneys do seem to think that!)

since kibitzing on an SHMB seems popular around here! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I understood the school district would get sued, but, of course, that may not be the case, but please be aware that when someone assumes the responsibility for the care of another person and the accompanying obligation to protect that person, who is mandatorily present, whether it be in a classroom or the back of a patrol unit, the person and government agency with that responsibility is liable if something foreseeable occurs, which it was clearly foreseeable that someone, crazy or not, could enter a school building containing kids and start shooting them ... or ram a patrol unit while drunk and running a red light!

.. I really don't want to waste my time, but on which side were you regarding the "responsibility" of the current administration for the deaths of the ambassadors and the contractors on site to provide protection for them in Lybia?

I am being consistent .. are you?

That's a completely inapt comparison.

It's obvious that the probability of a militant attack on a U.S. embassy or consulate compound in areas teeming with jihadists is extremely high, while the risk of a child being murdered at school is very, very slight by comparison. It would be best, of course, to reduce it to as close to zero as possible, but I don't see how the state of Connecticut can reasonably be judged to have acted negligently. Couldn't this terrible crime have just as easlily happened almost anywhere else?

And if you open up states to tort lawsuit exposure, where does it all end? That would obviously be great for aggressive, ambitious plaintiffs' attorneys and a few jackpot-winning clients, but bad for everyone else.

Couldn't this terrible crime have just as easlily happened almost anywhere else? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The "we-should-arm-the-community" crowd can't have it both ways. On the one hand they claim that having more personal carriers of firearms deters such assaults ...

e.g. the shooter passed by two theaters without signs prohibiting weapons ....

while at the same time giving you are giving the school district a pass on not having ANY armed police officers in the school, when armed police officers have been assigned to schools for almost 20 years now.

As for the "likelihood" it is almost a "no brainer" discussion in law enforcement about publicized crimes creating copy-cat type events, and since Columbine there have been a number of the thwarted or quickly stopped by LE.

Finally, you keep saying "state" .... I never said anything about suing the state. Now if the Connecticut school system is a state agency in the literal sense, as opposed to a legal concept, then the Commonwealth of Connecticutt should get sued. But if the school district is a separate political entity, then the school district should be one.

You case for Lybia makes the point for the administration's failure in Lybia, and for the school district. If you beef up the schools it is less likely that there will be an attack and it is less likely that any such attack will be successful. Prevention and deterrence.

You case for Lybia makes the point for the administration's failure in Lybia, and for the school district... Originally Posted by LexusLover

I noted the sheer ridiculousness of that comparison in my last post.

Finally, you keep saying "state" .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

The reason I said "state" should be obvious enough -- that's what this whole issue is about! Read the link ExNYer posted. It clearly reports that the subject attorney is seeking permission to sue the state, not the school district. I don't know why he didn't choose the latter route. Perhaps he thought that course of action might not go very well, or that the school district's pockets might not be quite deep enough.

It seems to me that it would be a terrible idea to expose states to tort claims such as this. What would come next? Suing the state if someone gets injured in an accident and claims that the warning signage for an allegedly "dangerous" stretch of state highway was inadquate? Or maybe the speed limit was 10mph higher than some "expert" was willing to testify is the maximum safe speed?

Perhaps it's your view that situations potentially involving risks can best be addressed by siccing plaintiffs' attorneys on governments and organizations.

It isn't mine.

Perhaps it's your view that situations potentially involving risks can best be addressed by siccing plaintiffs' attorneys on governments and organizations.

It isn't mine. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It usually isn't the anti-attorney crowd's "view," until they get hurt or charged with a crime.

The problem with your "position" is that there is a whole body of law in this country, Federal and State, that allows the government to be sued for a variety of reasons under a variety of circumstances based on case law, as well as statutory authority, without the "requirement" of permission, because it has already been determined that under those circumstances the government can be sued for those activities or inactivities.