Rocked by school violence, Colo. mulls school liability

Gun free zones may start costing themselves more than adequate armed security.... good, sue away.

ScienceChic wrote: From 9News :
"The bill, supported by Claire Davis' family, passed the Senate Judiciary committee by a vote of 4-1 this afternoon. It would allow victims of school violence and their families to sue schools and to request further investigation into what may have led to the violence.

Steve Staeger was at the hearing and will have more on 9NEWS at 9 and 10 tonight."

Rocked by school violence, Colo. mulls school liability
Amy Crowfoot,
April 13, 2015

DENVER - Colorado lawmakers are advancing a bill to make schools liable for shootings and violence.

A bill that won approval 4-1 in its first test Monday in a state Senate committee is a response to heartbreaking school shootings. Among the bill's main supporters are the parents of a Claire Davis who was killed in 2013 at Arapahoe High School.

The bill waives the state's governmental immunity at public schools and allows victims or their relatives to collect up to $350,000 for violence "when the harm is reasonably foreseeable."

Interesting move. Although I think governmental immunity shouldn't exist, I also worry that this opens our schools and taxpayers up to more costs. The bill that was passed long ago requiring schools to create emergency plans and procedures (and ZHawke is much more knowledgeable on that than I) has been largely ignored because no one's pushed the issue - perhaps this will spur more schools to become proactive as they should be.

In the end, it would just be nice for there to be accountability and planning to happen so that kids are safer. It would be nice if we didn't have to get there through unwelcome tragedies and senseless costs to all of society.

This has everything to do with SB 08-181 , and it goes beyond the gun free zones and guns everywhere issues.

Virtually anything that happens to a school and/or students attending those schools can be litigated if someone out there knows what has and/or has not been done by schools according to the law.

This law was an unfunded mandate. I believe that has something to do with why many schools choose not to comply. Another possibility is some schools aren't even aware of this law. Still another possibility is that school administrators, specifically, look at the law and choose not to comply because they are intimidated and/or overwhelmed by what they are required to do in order to be in compliance. And yet another possibility lies in their perception they don't have the expertise or even know where to turn to get the help they need to come into compliance. None of the perceptions is an acceptable excuse for non-compliance.

Basically, what it comes down to, from my perspective, is awareness: awareness of the law, awareness schools must be in compliance with the law, awareness of the potential for litigation if schools choose to do nothing and something does happen, and awareness of how this law, if followed, could be of benefit to the schools and communities in which they are located by helping to limit the chances for litigation if it can be proven after the fact the schools were in compliance and met standards and criteria therein.

Good reason not to send your children to school. No one really held responsible since they are immune.

Hate to see taxpayers having to foot more of the bill but then maybe they will get pissed off and hold administrator's feet to the fire.

That isn't exactly true, Ashley. To an extent, there is, in fact, governmental immunity, but only to an extent. If non-compliance with existing law can be proven, negligence factors into the equation. That's why I said in my previous post that all it takes is one person out there who has knowledge of the law and who is willing to call into question whether a school was in compliance with that law or not and the "immunity" defense can be dismissed entirely. In fact, individuals can be held liable in some scenarios, as well. Government immunity only goes so far. I need to do more research for empirical data on this issue and will share as I find it.

It was much more than a mandate for school districts, it was also a mandate on the "first responder" community. The schools and the school personnel get their direction from the school district they belong to, or the Charter School Institute if they are individually chartered by that branch of the State government, which is where the mandate is actually placed, on the school districts and the CSI. The school districts and the CSI are the ones responsible for coming up with the protocols, coordinating with the "first responders", deciding which people in the school are required to finish the courses and then designing, scheduling and conducting the required "exercises" at the individual schools, and getting all the boxes checked in the paperwork after the "exercise" is completed. To suggest, or even imply, that this burden rests on the individual school or its administration wouldn't be in accordance with the legislation according to the position paper that was issued because the law itself was so vague as to be worthless for all intents and purposes. The only mandate placed on the school itself is that the people chosen by the district to receive the training complete the training, that it conducts the exercises deemed necessary and appropriate by the school district, and that the Safety Plan developed by the district or the CSI is followed at that school.

This is the link to the actual statute, SB 08-181 if anyone is interested. The one I posted earlier is to the Position Paper referenced by Printsmith.

This is what I've found so far on the governmental immunity side of the issue. There are exceptions to immunity according to Colorado law. Interpreting what those exceptions are and how they would apply in the context of schools is problematic from what I'm seeing.

Here's a link to some additional school safety legislation that has been enacted into law in Colorado:

Colorado School Safety Resource Center School Safety Legislation

While the following source is not "specific" to Colorado, it does present some very interesting information on the issue being discussed here:

Applying and Piercing Governmental Immunity in School Liability Cases

From the opinion:

A proximate cause of student injury in schools may be failure on the part of the administration or other employees who are charged with a ministerial duty. In contrast to discretionary acts, a ministerial duty is a responsibility to conform to federal, state, or local statutes or to policies and procedures a school has set. Determining the elements of a policy and enacting the policy may be discretionary acts, while the responsibility to carry them out is a ministerial school duty.

Edited to add: there is also a "standard of care" factor in all of this. Schools, by the very nature of the responsibility to provide safe learning environments for our kids, are therefore responsible for providing a standard of care for same. If they fall short of that, they open themselves up for litigation.