The suits should be directed at the school corporation for not building a building with proper physical security such as unbreachable doors and windows and not having a workable plan to neutralize an intruder.
The suits should be directed at the school corporation for not building a building with proper physical security such as unbreachable doors and windows and not having a workable plan to neutralize an intruder.
If only they protected kids like they protect money...
many states have learned more gun restrictions just make more soft targets. Most malls, schools, lax air termanil. These are places the a salient is less likely to get shot back at for a time. I have yet to hear about a person going to a police or sheriff station and shooting (heck no they have Wepons and are willing to shoot back).
I agree spend the money on school buildings, busses, teachers, firefighters, cops, and if there is any money left (right) pay welfare and politicians.
Just my humble opinion
For anyone brave enough to read it, here's the actual text of the lawsuit. I skimmed through it and it's really hard for me to take them seriously.
Newtown families file lawsuit against gunmaker - StamfordAdvocate
Under the doctrine of "negligent entrustment" they might have a case against the estate of Nancy Lanza. Negligent entrustment against the manufacturer or gun shop for putting certain goods into the stream of commerce-no way, even without the federal immunity statute.
Negligent entrustment is a real doctrine?
Yep. Comes up in automobile accident cases, mostly. For instance, if I know or have reason to know that the guy to whom I'm lending my car can't drive worth a ****, or is reckless etc., and through his negligence or recklessness causes someone injury, I could be held liable along with him for the injury.
Of course, this would depend entirely on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. I'd guess that if I lent my car to by buddy who was slurring his speech, smelled of alcohol and was stumbling around, and he hurt someone, it would be a slam dunk for me being liable for his drunk driving accident.
Someone steals my car, different story entirely.
Under the doctrine of "negligent entrustment" they might have a case against the estate of Nancy Lanza....
Is it "negligent entrustment" when he killed her with one gun, then stole the AR used at the school?
How can you be said to have "entrusted" something to someone who killed you to get it?
How can you be negligent post-mortem?