Claim seeks $100 million for child survivor of Connecticut school shooting

MERIDEN, Connecticut Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:36pm EST

A U.S. flag hangs over stockings left as a memorial for victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, along a fence surrounding the Sandy Hook Cemetery in Newtown, Connecticut December 27, 2012. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

A U.S. flag hangs over stockings left as a memorial for victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, along a fence surrounding the Sandy Hook Cemetery in Newtown, Connecticut December 27, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Adrees Latif

Related Topics

MERIDEN, Connecticut (Reuters) - A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

Pinsky said he filed a claim on Thursday with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., whose office must give permission before a lawsuit can be filed against the state.

"We all know its going to happen again," Pinsky said on Friday. "Society has to take action."

Twenty children and six adults were shot dead on December 14 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The children were all 6 and 7 years old.

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

It said they had failed to provide a "safe school setting" or design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

Pinsky said he was approached by the child's parents within a week of the shooting.

The shooting, which also left the gunman dead, has prompted extensive debate about gun control and the suggestion by the National Rifle Association that schools be patrolled by armed guards. Police have said the gunman killed his mother at their home in Newtown before going to the school.

(Reporting by Mary Ellen Godin Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
MetalHead8 wrote:
The Family of the Survivor are just as much of a scum bags, as the gun grabbers. They are simply using a horrible tragedy to push there agenda. They make decisons out of emotion, not logic.

Yeah, i get it, your kid heard terrible things on the intercom, well so did this young girl they came into my job. She’s dealing with it fine. This survivor’s parents are simply sueing to get money they think there entitled too. Its not like the State said “well i think that a mentally ill kids going to murder his mother, take her guns that she neglectfully left un-secure despite the law, and then murder kids at school”. If the state really wanted to take prevent that, they would have secruity at all schools. and the goverment isnt even taking the nessesary steps to do that, so why should the state?

100 Million Drained from the state budget is going to make it harder to hire secruity for school which leads to more school masscures.

So everyone knows, I live in Newtown, and Newtown is full of Weathy, Yuppie, White people that are sue happy. Newtown also has a terrible drug problem in there schools.

Dec 29, 2012 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
lisalisarose wrote:
They have a case. The event was arguably forseeable as it’s happened too many times and no emergency protocol was in place. What could have been in place short of full lockdown and sniper guards is unclear, but that is not the problem of the family launching the suit.

Dec 29, 2012 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:
This family is suing because their child heard screaming and swearing during an attack by a madman? From what I understand, the gunman shot out the glass in locked exterior doors, and when he encountered the principal and another employee, he shot them.

If this family is succcessful in this lawsuit, will they then be able to sue themselves if their child overhears them argueing or swearing? short of armed guards at every entrance to the building and at ever classroom door, I am not sure what else they could have done to protect the children. These sue happy parents need to realize that they are basically suing all the other parents whose property taxes support the schools.

Dec 29, 2012 4:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus