Skip to main contentSkip to main content
You are the owner of this article.
You have permission to edit this article.
Tech shooting

Va. Supreme Court overturns Va. Tech shooting verdict

  • Updated
  • 0

The Virginia Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the jury verdict in a wrongful-death suit against the state in favor of the families of two students slain in the April 16, 2007, massacre at Virginia Tech.

Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson were among 32 students and faculty members killed by student Seung-Hui Cho in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Last year, a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury awarded each family $4 million, which was reduced to $100,000 each by a state cap on damages. The state appealed the verdict, arguing that it should be overturned because of errors at trial.

In a 15-page ruling released Thursday, the justices agreed that under the facts of the case, there was no duty for state officials to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.

The justices dismissed, as moot, an appeal filed by the families seeking to have Charles W. Steger, the school president who was dismissed as a defendant in the lawsuit on a procedural technicality, reinstated as part of the suit.

Most of the families of slain students accepted shares of an $11 million state settlement.

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said the university is “very pleased that the Supreme Court recognized and corrected the errors of the lower court which resulted in a faulty jury verdict.”

Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, said, “Words cannot express the tremendous sympathy we have for the families who lost their loved ones in the Virginia Tech shootings of 2007 — including the Prydes and the Petersons.”

But, he added, “the Virginia Supreme Court has found what we have said all along to be true: The commonwealth and its officials at Virginia Tech were not negligent on April 16, 2007. Cho was the lone person responsible for this tragedy.”

L. Steven Emmert, one of the lawyers for the families, said, “We are all very disappointed with the outcome.” He said that as of Thursday afternoon, he had not been in touch with the families.

In a statement Thursday, Steger said he was grateful for “the wise counsel” from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and others in his office “throughout the lengthy fallout from this wrenching tragedy.” Said Steger: “Cuccinelli was personally engaged, for which I will be forever grateful.”

Still unresolved are $32,500 in fines levied by the U.S. Department of Education against Tech after the university was found in violation of the federal Clery Act, which requires timely warnings of threats on campus.

Tech’s delay in issuing a warning after the first two killings resulted initially in two fines totaling $55,000, which an administrative law judge dismissed on an appeal by Tech. Last year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan reinstated one $27,500 fine and remanded the other back to the judge, who reduced it to $5,000.

The case remains on appeal before Duncan.

The families contended that a special relationship existed between state employees and the students; that the officials had a duty to warn the students of a 7:30 a.m. shooting of students in a dormitory and that their failure to do so led to the deaths of others.

Police initially believed the first two shootings were domestic-related and that a victim’s boyfriend was a suspect. No campuswide warning about the first shootings was sent until two hours later. The other shootings, in Norris Hall, occurred starting at 9:45 a.m.

The jury was instructed that if it found the university employees should have reasonably foreseen that there might be more shootings after the first ones but failed to warn students, the state should be found negligent.

Among other things, the Attorney General’s Office argued that school officials had no special relationship with the students imposing a duty on them to warn of potential harm from a third party.

And in any case, the attorney general argued, there was no foreseeable harm to the students and the evidence failed to establish that any alleged breach of duty led to the additional slayings.

But Robert T. Hall, a lawyer representing the two families, argued before the justices in September that with one dead and one wounded student on campus and a gunman still on the loose, there was evidence of imminent probability of harm.

Thursday’s opinion, written by Justice Cleo E. Powell, held that “as a general rule, a person does not have a duty to warn or protect another from the criminal acts of a third person.”

That is particularly the case, said the justices, when the third party commits assaults that can not be reasonably foreseen. There are exceptions, but narrow ones, they said.

“In only rare circumstances has this court determined that the duty to protect against harm from third-party criminal acts exists,” said the ruling.

The justices noted that the commonwealth did not know who the shooter was while law enforcement was in the early stages of its investigation of the crime.

“However, based on representations from three different police departments, Virginia Tech officials believed the shooting was a domestic incident and that the shooter may have been the boyfriend of one of the victims,” says the ruling.

“Most importantly, based on the information available at the time, the defendants believed that the shooter had fled the area and posed no danger to others,” Powell wrote.

She concluded that “it cannot be said that it was known or reasonably foreseeable that students in Norris Hall would fall victim to criminal harm.” Thus, as a matter of law, the commonwealth did not have a duty to protect students against third-party criminal acts.

Hincker said the court reversed an action that was based on an incorrect interpretation of Virginia law. “These clearly were important legal principles that had to be and were clarified,” he said.

(804) 649-6340

(804) 649-6119



Related to this story

Most Popular

Virginia Commonwealth University will pay nearly $1 million to the family of a young man who died after a 2021 fraternity hazing incident as part of a recent settlement agreement. The agreement with the family of Adam Oakes also requires the Richmond university to make changes to its fraternity and sorority life. VCU announced the deal Friday after it was approved by a court. The agreement will require that VCU students complete 12 credit hours before joining a fraternity or sorority. It will also prohibit alcohol at any fraternity or sorority event attended by new members. An investigation found Oakes died after being told to drink a large bottle of whiskey.

Police say a 4-year-old boy has been shot and killed at a home in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia. Police say the Suffolk 911 Center received a call around 9 p.m. Sunday reporting a shooting that involved a 4-year-old boy at a home on Pine Street in Suffolk. Suffolk Fire/EMS treated the boy on the scene and took him to a hospital, where police say he was pronounced dead. Police say a suspect was taken into custody, but officials did not release details about the suspect or the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The investigation is ongoing.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) _ These Virginia lotteries were drawn Friday:

A class-action suit is challenging Virginia’s implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court asserts that when parents challenge school plans for how to educate their children, hearing officers rarely side with parents. Parents who question services offered for their child can file a complaint and go before a judge, but the suit asserts that about two-thirds of hearing officers have never ruled in parents’ favor in the last 20 years.  The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the system “deprives families of procedural due process” and want the department to be found out of compliance with the federal law.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


Breaking News