Virginia Teacher Case Leads to $10M Verdict
A high profile case involving a Virginia teacher (the victim/plaintiff) who was shot point blank by her 6-year-old student went to trial, with the jury rendering a $10 million verdict. The defendant (the party sued) was the assistant school principal. The teacher alleged the assistant school principal’s failure to prevent the shooting amounted to gross negligence because she did not follow the school’s protocol requiring administrators to remove a student deemed a threat from the classroom and calling police. This was despite being notified by several people throughout the day that the student had a gun and was in a violent and threatening mood. The assistant school principal declined to intervene or perform a search, resulting in the shooting. The damages were based on the shooting, with the bullet going through the teacher’s hand and puncturing her chest, resulting in several surgeries, a collapsed lung, ongoing difficulties with her left hand, as well as the mental and emotional trauma from the incident.
While the subject matter in this case was tough, there were many parallels to cases we take to trial. First, the plaintiff must establish liability/negligence (in other words, the defendant is at fault). In some situations, the defendant will admit liability, either because it is obvious (such as a rear-end collision) or because it allows the defendant to attempt to take heat off the defendant’s actions (especially if there are egregious facts such as drinking and driving or other bad conduct) by appearing reasonable. When liability is not clear, the defense tries to shift some or all the blame on the plaintiff or other individuals. In this case, the defense argued the teacher/plaintiff could have done some of the things they argued the defendant did not do, such as personally contacting administration or working as a team to solve the problem rather than blaming the vice principal.
The second component is the damages, which is the portion which includes the physical injuries, the pain and suffering, the mental and emotional toll, the changes to the person’s life and the impact on their activities of daily living. Here, the defense went hard against the plaintiff because that is the only way to effectively keep damages down for the defense. Some of the things they did that were effective:
- They confronted the plaintiff on an Instagram private message she sent to Taylor Swift where she said she was the teacher who had been shot and had attended Swift’s Eras Tour. They argued this was evidence that she was dishonest about being unable to go out in public, implying she was not as physically and emotionally damaged as she claimed. In the message, the teacher also said she wanted to keep the message private since she had a public case pending. Ouch. The lesson here is do NOT post anything on social media because it could be discoverable, even if it is a “private” message.
- They obtained some of the teacher’s text messages, which were used to impeach her credibility. The lesson here is if it is in writing, it could be discoverable. When going through a litigation case, always be mindful this information could come to light and it is best to determine if something could be taken out of context before hitting send.
- They obtained her workout history from her gym where she both worked out and worked part-time. The teacher alleged she could not do certain physical activities as well, which was likely true in light of her physical injuries. However, the defendants tried to spin it as she was fine and living a normal, physical life. The plaintiff did a good job explaining how things were different from before and how this was not an injury that prevented her from doing everything, it was just that the doing was different. For instance, she described her difficulty opening a bag of chips with both hands during lunch.
- They obtained her cosmetology school records and her application for employment at a salon to imply she was able to work just fine and had the dexterity back in the hand that was involved in the shooting. They used one of the documents where she signed off saying she could do the physical requirements of cosmetology. This was an effective cross-examination by the defense, but the plaintiff did a good job of putting things in context. Yes, she pursued cosmetology but she styled the hair seen in the photos with help from her instructors and took much longer than the other students.
Ultimately, while the defense scored some points, clearly the jury felt the assistant school principal was negligent and that the teacher was deserving of compensation for getting shot and for her damages. If anyone is interested in seeing portions of the trial, it is available on YouTube within the Court TV channel. |
Daycare Injuries/Abuse
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.