Jepsen Addresses Request To Sue State For Newtown Shooting

by Categorized: Uncategorized Tagged: , , Date:

In a statement issued Monday, Attorney General George Jepsen said his office is \”aware of no facts or legal theory under which the state of Connecticut should be liable for causing the harms inflicted at Sandy Hook Elementary School.\”

Jepsen was responding to a request made by New Haven lawyer Irving Pinsky on behalf of a 6-year-old student who survived the Dec. 14 mass shooting. On Thursday, Pinsky filed for permission to sue the state for $100 million with Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr.

Twenty students and six women were killed at Sandy Hook Dec. 14. The shooter, Adam Lanza, also shot his mother at their home.

Lanza committed suicide as police arrived at the school.

In Pinsky\’s notice, the student is listed as \”Jill Doe.\” Pinsky\’s claim says the State Board of Education, the state Department of Education and the education commissioner failed to take steps to protect the minor children from foreseeable harm.

Monday, Jepsen said the claim letter filed in the case doesn\’t identify \”a valid basis to support a claim against the state and, by extension, its taxpayers.\”

While Jepsen said the attorney general\’s office has a statutory obligation to defend the claim, he said the claims commissioner\’s office is not the appropriate venue for a discussion about the shooting.

\”Our hearts go out to to this family, and to all the children and families affected by the Newtown shootings,\” he said. \”They deserve a thoughtful and deliberate examination of the causes of this tragedy and of the appropriate public policy responses.\”

Also on Monday, the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association’s executive officers sent an email to association members about Pinsky’s claim.

“CTLA joins with all other citizens in CT in mourning the tragic loss of life in Newtown,” it reads. “We believe that the timing and circumstances of this action are ill-advised. We will continue to extend our heartfelt sympathies to the victims of the Newtown tragedy, and we remain committed to joining the efforts of countless individuals in Connecticut and around the country to find ways to assist the victims and families affected by this tragedy.”

When read the contents of the letter, Pinsky said he liked the statement but disagreed with the part pertaining to his case.

“For my case, what I’m doing is appropriate,” he said.

Pinsky said the family of “Jill Doe” contacted him about legal action. He said he hasn’t approached anyone in Newtown about the tragedy.

Whether or not the state allows the lawsuit, the claim has the potential to be a catalyst for change, Pinsky said, explaining that people need to focus on making schools better and safer before another tragedy occurs.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

8 thoughts on “Jepsen Addresses Request To Sue State For Newtown Shooting

  1. crackerjack

    This lawyer is a sicko. Unfortunately most are and this guy doesn’t help the cause. 100 million dollars? Low life ambulance chaser.

  2. Palin Smith

    Jepsen’s main concern is protecting the government, not the students. If Jepsen cared one iota for the safety of children he would call for armed guards at once!

  3. valkae

    People in this country are sue happy!!! It’s disgusting that someone would try to sue the state! The only things responsible for that horror are the killer and guns!! Take care of your child instead of going after money. No money in the world could ease our pain if it had happened to our child!!! You want change? We do! But go after the change in a better way.

  4. Kim

    many lawyers may be ‘sue happy’ as indicated, but they wouldn’t get away with it without activist judges following their own agendas instead of the law. The judges can stop frivolity and put an end to outrageous, undeservced rewards if they wanted to

Comments are closed.