Sandy Hook lawsuits : could they be ended instantly in a settlement?

[buddy431]

@Dewey_Finn

Nancy Lanza’s estate stopped paying the mortgage on the house, so the bank seized it. They then turned it over to Newtown (or sold it to the town for a dollar). The town thought about what to do with it and eventually decided to demolish it (a local firm demolished it for free). All of the stuff in the house was burned so that no one could collect a “souvenir.” They still haven’t decided what to do with the land, but most likely it will remain open land.

In short, no one is profiting from Nancy Lanza’s house.

Sounds like the city got a sweet deal on the land anyways.

That’s surprising to me that the bank would just give up that valuable of property. I suppose there might be a PR issue, but I can’t imagine the property would drop enough in value that they would just say fuck it and give it away. If you offered me a slight discount on a good property I’d buy Satan’s former abode.

[Dewey_Finn]

Sure it’s a sweet deal. It only cost the town the lives of twenty first graders and six teachers.

[md2000]

@get_lives

…
ETA: judges have to live in their communities. I sure wouldn’t stand in the way of a jury trial, law or not, if I were a judge. You’d be shunned. You’d have to move.

@get_lives

This might just be that special case.

If there’s one thing that would supersede any strong feelings about the case, it would be the principle that NOBODY intimidates law enforcement and ESPECIALLY officers of the court.

I sense a very difficult time simply getting bail for anyone stupid enough to threaten a judge.

If the house was repossessed for outstanding mortgage, it’s possible it had minimal equity value.

The lawsuits claim that Nancy Lanza kept the rapid-fire Bushmaster in her home “unsecured” and that her “carelessness and negligence” contributed to the pain and suffering of the victims.

One lawsuit accused Lanza of allowing her son access to weapons “despite the fact that she knew, or should have known, that his mental and emotional condition made him a danger to others.”

So there’s the key points - was keeping a gun unsecured “careless and negligent”? Should she have known that “his mental and emotional condition made him a danger to others”?

I know in Canada it is a crime to store a gun except in a locked cabinet. However, I doubt that is the case in Connecticut - so basically her storage was probably no different than any other gun owner. I doubt anyone wants a precedent that having a gun in the house makes you liable. (Plus anyone living in the house probably figures out wher keys are pretty quickly) The question is whether her son was known to be a danger.

[Saint_Cad]

Re: suing the school.
From the description it seems there had been absolutely no Active Shooter training for the staff or students. I know the first instinct is to hide but the proper procedure (as per numerous Active Shooter trainings given by professionals - not just Saint Cad’s brain or school staff that has no clue) is:

Flee: Get the fuck out of the building and get something between you and the shooter like cars in a parking lot. Don’t go in the hallway - break a window and GTFO. If you’re on the second floor break a window, jump and try to land on someone soft and GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE BUILDING!!!

Hide: typical lockdown and what most people revert to. Basically lock the door and hope the shooter goes somewhere else. Many have survived this, unfortunately the shooter sometimes enters the room and no one goes to the third step.

Fight: If the shooter comes in, you are already dead. The ONLY hope you have is to fight back immediately and with no fear to your own safety because if you don’t fight, you WILL BE EXECUTED! This is what happens when the killer walks in and you don’t fight:

Lanza then entered a first-grade classroom where Lauren Rousseau, a substitute teacher, had herded her first grade students to the back of the room, and was trying to hide them in a bathroom, when Lanza forced his way into the classroom. Rousseau, Rachel D’Avino (a behavioral therapist who had been employed for a week at the school to work with a special needs student), and fifteen students in Rousseau’s class were all killed.

Lanza next went to another first-grade classroom nearby; at this point, there are conflicting reports about the order of events. According to some reports, the classroom’s teacher, Victoria Leigh Soto, had concealed some of the students in a closet or bathroom, and some of the other students were hiding under desks. Soto was walking back to the classroom door to lock it when Lanza entered the classroom. Lanza walked to the back of the classroom, saw the children under the desks, and shot them.

The shooters walked to the opposite side of the library, to two rows of computers. Todd hid behind the administrative counter. Kyle Velasquez, 16, was sitting at the north row of computers; police later said he had not hidden underneath the desk when Klebold and Harris had first entered the library, but had curled up under the computer table. Klebold shot and killed Velasquez, hitting him in the head and back.

Klebold fired his shotgun at a nearby table, injuring three students named Patrick Ireland, Daniel Steepleton, and Makai Hall. He removed his trench coat. As Klebold fired at the three, Harris grabbed his shotgun and walked toward the lower row of computer desks, firing a single shot under the first desk without looking. He hit 14-year-old Steven Curnow with a mortal wound to the neck. Harris shot under the adjacent computer desk, injuring 17-year-old Kacey Ruegsegger in the hand, arm and shoulder. When she started gasping in pain, Harris told her to “quit your bitching”.

Harris walked over to the table across from the lower computer row, slapped the surface twice and knelt, saying “Peek-a-boo” to 17-year-old Cassie Bernall before shooting her once in the head, killing her instantly. Harris had been holding the shotgun with one hand at this point and the weapon hit his face in recoil, breaking his nose. Three students who witnessed Bernall’s death, including one who had been hiding beneath the table with her, have testified that Bernall did not exchange words with Harris after his initial taunt

Klebold walked toward another set of tables, where he discovered 18-year-old Isaiah Shoels, 16-year-old Matthew Kechter and 16-year old Craig Scott (the younger brother of Rachel Scott), hiding under one table. All three were popular athletes. Klebold tried to pull Shoels out from under the table. He called to Harris, shouting, “Reb! There’s a nigger over here”. Harris left Pasquale and joined him. According to Witnesses, Klebold and Harris taunted Shoels for a few seconds, making derogatory racial comments. Harris knelt down and shot Shoels once in the chest at close range, killing him instantly. Klebold also knelt down and opened fire, hitting and killing Kechter. Harris then yelled; “Who’s ready to die next?”. Meanwhile Scott was uninjured; he lay in the blood of his friends, feigning death. Harris turned and threw a CO2 bomb at the table where Hall, Steepleton, and Ireland were located. It landed on Steepleton’s thigh, and Hall quickly threw it away.

I can say that with all of the schools I have taught at, I have never been taught how to deal with an active shooter properly. Luckily Mrs Cad is in security and had trained me and our kids. I can also say that I have never seen a school train students (even the incorrect way) and I have said that if we train assuming student are in classroom that if a shooter ever came in during passing period or lunch our kids would be slaughtered.

IMHO, in the 21st century, if we are not having professionals (not school staff) train teachers and students in active shooters scenarios, the school and districts are guilty of negligence.

[get_lives]

@buddy431

Sounds like the city got a sweet deal on the land anyways.

That’s surprising to me that the bank would just give up that valuable of property. I suppose there might be a PR issue, but I can’t imagine the property would drop enough in value that they would just say fuck it and give it away. If you offered me a slight discount on a good property I’d buy Satan’s former abode.

Might be a PR issue? Yeah, nobody in the state would ever do business with that bank again if they did anything other than lose their entire investment in that house. You mourn as a group. No mourning means you’re not part of the group.

[Habeed]

@Saint_Cad

IMHO, in the 21st century, if we are not having professionals (not school staff) train teachers and students in active shooters scenarios, the school and districts are guilty of negligence.

These are scary stories. With that said, mass shootings are so rare that it’s probably not worth the time or the effort. Teaching the kids to eat healthy and not drink and drive or smoke - or not to major in liberal arts in college - would probably still be far more worthy of the time in money in terms of lifespan saved per dollar spent.

[UDS]

@Northern_Piper

But I think the OP skates over the fiduciary duty of the estate administrator a bit too quickly. That duty is owed to the heirs, which I understand is the deceased’s other surviving son.

Um. Isn’t it the duty of the administrator to pay the assets of the estate to those entitled? If the deceased had debts which survive as claims against the estate, the administrator has a duty to pay them.

IOW, this lawsuit would be a dispute about who is entitled to the assets of the estate - potential judgment creditors or the next of kin. The administrator, I think, has no business favouring the claims of one side over the other. Or am I missing something?

[slash2k]

@UDS

Um. Isn’t it the duty of the administrator to pay the assets of the estate to those entitled? If the deceased had debts which survive as claims against the estate, the administrator has a duty to pay them.

IOW, this lawsuit would be a dispute about who is entitled to the assets of the estate - potential judgment creditors or the next of kin. The administrator, I think, has no business favouring the claims of one side over the other. Or am I missing something?

Since the lawsuit claims have not been reduced to judgment yet, the claims of the plaintiffs are merely theoretical, whereas the claims of the heirs are real and current. The argument is that the administrator making “deals” with the plaintiffs BEFORE any possible judgment would in fact favor those plaintiffs to the detriment of the heir(s), thus breaching duty.

[UDS]

@slash2k

Since the lawsuit claims have not been reduced to judgment yet, the claims of the plaintiffs are merely theoretical, whereas the claims of the heirs are real and current. The argument is that the administrator making “deals” with the plaintiffs BEFORE any possible judgment would in fact favor those plaintiffs to the detriment of the heir(s), thus breaching duty.

My point is, isn’t it up to the heirs to make any deals that are to be made? The administrator’s duty is to pay the assets to those entitled, not to have a view as to who ought to be entitled, or to seek to maximise the entitlement of A at the expense of B. As long as there’s a claim against the estate by A he can’t distribute to B, and it’s really up to B to decide whether the claim should be fought, with certain delay but but (let’s assume) likely victory, or settled, with speedy distribution but much less money.

[LSLGuy]

@Habeed

These are scary stories. With that said, mass shootings are so rare that it’s probably not worth the time or the effort. Teaching the kids to eat healthy and not drink and drive or smoke - or not to major in liberal arts in college - would probably still be far more worthy of the time in money in terms of lifespan saved per dollar spent.

Mythoughts precisely. “Active shooter” training in elementary schools is simply force feeding fear into kids and schools.

Fearful paranoid adults are helpful to some political agendas. Just not any that civilized people ought to support.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

I am probably showing my lack of Civ Pro experience here, but while I obviously agree that a successful dismissal would be appealed, a judge that refused to dismiss might not grant an interlocutory appeal. Is there something about this issue that would force an interlocutory appeal or allow it by right?

@Northern_Piper

Obviously, will depend on Connecticut civ pro, and I don’t know anything about that! However, the system I’m familiar with does allow for appeals on points of law when a motion to dismiss on a summary judgment is refused, by leave of the appellate court.

Connecticut follows the majority US rule that denial of summary judgment is almost never subject to appeal. That is as contrasted with an order granting summary judgment, which is by its nature a final order.

‘‘An otherwise interlocutory order is appealable in two circumstances: (1) where the order or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.’’ State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983).

However, denial of a summary judgment based on dispositive issues that are intended to contract or end litigation - including settlement, collateral estoppel and the like - generally is an appealable interlocutory order.

[md2000]

Friend of mine’s brother was in a high school class in 1978 when some student came in and shot another student with a sawed off shotgun - in 1978. Google finds a fairlydetailed description:

Jan 2013: When school shootings were unthinkable

The death toll stopped at 1 because the sawed-off shotgun jammed. Most people were totally unaware of what had actually happened at the time. No lockdown, back to class next day… as the article says, Columbine changed everything much later. But… disturbed impulsive teenagers with difficulty foreseeing the consequences of their actions is by no means a new phenomenon.

[Cheesesteak]

@slash2k

The argument is that the administrator making “deals” with the plaintiffs BEFORE any possible judgment would in fact favor those plaintiffs to the detriment of the heir(s), thus breaching duty.

I don’t think the administrator or the heir has any say in a deal. This is homeowners insurance, not a $1M bank account. If Lanza is found at fault, the insurance will pay out, if Lanza isn’t at fault, the insurance doesn’t pay. There’s no money to go to the heirs regardless of how it turns out.

Now, the insurance company may be able to make a deal, but they won’t have the threat of using up the $1M in legal fees.

[Saint_Cad]

@LSLGuy

Mythoughts precisely. “Active shooter” training in elementary schools is simply force feeding fear into kids and schools.

Fearful paranoid adults are helpful to some political agendas. Just not any that civilized people ought to support.

Then at least train adults properly. 30 minutes once a year would do it.

[md2000]

@Cheesesteak

I don’t think the administrator or the heir has any say in a deal. This is homeowners insurance, not a $1M bank account. If Lanza is found at fault, the insurance will pay out, if Lanza isn’t at fault, the insurance doesn’t pay. There’s no money to go to the heirs regardless of how it turns out.

Now, the insurance company may be able to make a deal, but they won’t have the threat of using up the $1M in legal fees.

But doesn’t it work that - If the lawsuit is for a figure greater than the insured limit, then the remainder would be paid out by the estate (to the limit of its ability). I imagine if the insurance company wants to fight it, they would pay for the lawyers.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Saint_Cad

@LSLGuy

Mythoughts precisely. “Active shooter” training in elementary schools is simply force feeding fear into kids and schools.

Fearful paranoid adults are helpful to some political agendas. Just not any that civilized people ought to support.

Then at least train adults properly. 30 minutes once a year would do it.

I doubt it, especially since in a real situation any training would disappear from one’s head. At least for most people.

[Saint_Cad]

@Dewey_Finn

I doubt it, especially since in a real situation any training would disappear from one’s head. At least for most people.

So ignorance is preferable?

[Dewey_Finn]

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

[buddha_david]

@Dewey_Finn

I doubt it, especially since in a real situation any training would disappear from one’s head. At least for most people.

But the training isn’t necessarily there to prevent or reduce the severity of an incident. The training’s there to prevent getting sued after an incident for not having any training.

[Dewey_Finn]

I think most schools do have lockdown drills nowadays.