Lawyer: $100M school shooting claim about security

  • Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:04 a.m.
  • Text size: A A A

A lawyer who is asking to sue Connecticut for $100 million on behalf of a 6-year-old Newtown school shooting survivor who heard violence over the school’s intercom system said the potential claim is about improving school security, not money.

“It’s about living in a world that’s safe,” New Haven attorney Irving Pinsky said Saturday. “The answer is about protecting the kids.”

Pinsky asked last week to sue the state, which has immunity against most lawsuits, unless it gives a party permission to go forward with a claim. Connecticut’s claims commissioner couldn’t be reached for comment Saturday.

Pinksy’s client, whom he calls “Jill Doe” in the claim, sustained “emotional and psychological trauma and injury” on Dec. 14 after gunman Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 children and six adults in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history.

The child heard “conversations, gunfire and screaming” over Sandy Hook’s intercom after someone in the office apparently switched on the system, according to the claim. Pinsky said Saturday he didn’t know whether his client saw anyone die.

The state Board of Education, Department of Education and state education commissioner failed to protect the child “from foreseeable harm,” including by failing to provide a safe school setting, the filing said.

Comments { }

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.