Following the tragedy that claimed 26 lives in Newtown,Conn., it is inevitable there will be an onslaught of civillawsuits against various people and organizations that some maydeem culpable for the shooting spree.

As we saw shortly after the Aurora, Colo. movie theater massacrein July, a significant number of claims were presented for personalinjury, emotional distress and wrongful death. Undoubtedly, similar claims will arisein the wake of what happened at Sandy Hook ElementarySchool. What makes this case more challenging is thelocation: a government-funded school, where sovereign immunitypotentially plays a role in limiting damages. 

Under the common-law sovereign immunity doctrine in the UnitedStates, a state cannot be sued without its consent. Municipalitiesdo not have sovereign immunity, though they have limited immunityfor discretionary actions, as do municipal officers and employees,except when conduct results in foreseeableinjury.  

In addition to the laws regarding liability and immunity for thestate and municipalities, Connecticut law requires local and stateboards of education to pay any claims against teachers resultingfrom injury, death, property damage or deprivation of civil rightsoccurring in the course of the individual's duties, so long as theindividual's actions were not reckless, wanton or malicious.

While Newtown, Conn. is described as a small, safe and quainttown tucked in the hills of affluent Fairfield County, it has beenwidely reported that the district had recently institutednew safety protocols designed to prevent the very type of tragedythat occurred. What is not known with certainty at thispoint is whether the protocols were followed. This couldpotentially give rise to a cause of action against the schooldistrict. 

The investigation is ongoing, but according tolaw-enforcement officials and various media outlets, it appearsthat the gunman, Adam Lanza, avoided such protocols by breaking awindow and entering the school. The school's principalconfronted Lanza, who then gunned her down. With this lineof defense disabled, the school and itsinhabitants became the victims of adeadly rampage by a troubled 20-year-old.

Liability and Litigation

There will be plenty of blame spread around. Could thestate have done more to identify the mentally ill Lanza andproactively treat him for his disorders? Should the gun dealers beheld accountable, despite the fact that those guns were registeredto Lanza's mother, who he shot before stealing theweapons? Could the school have done more to prevent thetragedy from occurring? Were there counselors Lanza wasseeing who may have had an indication of his potential forviolence?  

In the wake of the Colorado movie-theater massacre, an uninjuredTorrance Brown sued Century Theaters, the doctors of JamesHolmes, the suspected killer, and Warner Brothers. Brownalleged the theater emergency door should have had an alarm, thedoctors should have seen the killer's violent tendencies, andWarner Brothers caused the mayhem by virtue of creating violentmovies in the past that gave Holmes destructive ideas.

Earlier this year, a jury awarded $4 million each to two families who suedVirginia Tech after the 2007 massacre at that school. Insuing the state, the families' lawyers had argued the school shouldhave notified the student body sooner after learning that twostudents had been found dead earlier in the day in an on-campusdormitory prior to Seung Hui Cho going on to kill 30 otherpeople.

What is a certainty is that lawsuits will arise from theConnecticut shootings. Some will bejustified. More than likely, the school district will beat the top of the list. But could the school have donemore? Do we want our schools to have armed security on thepremises? Do we want entrants to schools to be required topass through metal detectors? Do we want alarms on everywindow? 

As the inevitable litigation begins, it creates a particularchallenge for those defending such actions where the sympathyfactor will likely play a significant role in outcomes. Itwill be extremely difficult to stand in front of the parents andrelatives of victims and try to deny them compensation. After all,how do you put a value on a child's life?