Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - Wrongful Death

$11 Million Lawsuit For Va Tech Massacre Families

Greg Webb — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:00:00 GMT

Circuit Court Judge Theodore J. Markow has approved an $11 million state settlement with families of nearly all of the victims in the Virginia Tech massacre. The families of twenty-four of the thirty-two people killed by Seung-Hui Cho will be compensated by the agreement. It also covers eighteen people who were injured, though their cases did not need court approval. This decision will prevent a court battle over who, other than the gunman, was to blame.

The settlement is considered by many to be a very reasonable outcome to the situation since Virginia usually has a $100,000 cap on liability in such cases. By agreeing to the settlement, the victims’ families are giving up their right to sue the local government, state government, the community service board that provides mental-health services in the area, and the university itself. Attorneys for the victims were given complete access to many documents that related to the shootings, such as investigative reports. These documents further detailed the poor job Virginia Tech did at notifying students of the threat on campus and of locking the university down to prevent other casualties.

Under the settlement, the families of the victims will be able to talk to university officials and the governor of Virginia several times to discuss changes made to the campus since the tragedy to better ensure students’ safety. The settlement also gives seriously injured victims free healthcare for the rest of their lives, the families of the people killed will each receive $100,000 and each of the individuals that were injured will be able to receive up to $100,000 each. Families of those who were killed can seek more money from a $1.9 million hardship fund. Attorney fees and money to charities will also be paid for.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_settlement;_ylt=AursBZeX6NyVeTueOMv.tINbIwgF

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Former KBR Employees Looking For Day In Court

Greg Webb — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:00:00 GMT

The claims of civilian truck drivers injured or killed in Iraq may finally receive a thorough hearing in court. The drivers at the center of the issue have filed a lawsuit against former employer, Houston-based company KBR. An appeals court decision, sending the case back to the lower court that dismissed it two years ago, may finally give the drivers the chance to get their case heard

The lawsuit was created on behalf of drivers whose fuel convoy was ambushed in April 2004, leaving fifteen drivers injured, six killed and one still missing. The drivers were assured by KBR that they would only be sent into active combat if they had adequate protection. The lawsuit claims KBR knew the convoy would be attacked but dispatched it anyway. KBR, on the other hand, claims it is merely an Army contractor and the Army is responsible for the safety of convoys. T. Scott Allen, a lawyer representing one of the drivers and their families, points out the fact that civilians are being hired for work that used to be handled by the military, yet they are not being given the same protection as soldiers, nor are they given the rights of private employees.

The issue at hand is whether questioning KBR’s decision to send drivers into harm’s way second-guesses their employer’s judgment or whether the questioning challenges military decisions. Military issues cannot be reviewed by a court of law, while workplace issues can. This military issue led to the case not being heard in 2006 because the U.S. District Judge said the court lacked the authority to question military decisions. Recently, however, the appeals court said the claims against KBR can be separated from the issue of the Army’s role since the KBR contract does not put the company under the Army’s direct supervision. While the case has been sent back for a trial, further appeals might prolong the process. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/5810966.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Virginia Legislators To Decide Whether Cap On Negligence Payment Should Be Increased

Greg Webb — Sun, 04 May 2008 20:37:17 GMT

Several Virginia legislators are deciding whether the limits on the state’s liability should be increased after the Virginia Tech shootings last April. The $100,000 limit on tort claims against the state has not been raised since 1993, leaving it as one of the most restrictive caps in the United States. After the forty families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings filed claims against the state, some legislators thought the issue of reform should be brought up and discussed over the summer. Because the General Assembly would not consider raising the cap until it assembles in January, it would not apply to the families of the Virginia Tech shootings. The effort to study the cap, however, should start a broad debate about Virginia’s protection under sovereign immunity, which implies the government can do no wrong and cannot be sued.

The cap has severely complicated the efforts of Virginia Tech victims to sue the state. Because of this, the families have agreed in principle to accept an $11 million settlement, in exchange for dropping the lawsuits against the state. Under the agreement, the state will still pay $100,000 to the victims and also offer the victims health benefits and other non-monetary assistance, while admitting to doing no wrong. The victims who were injured in the shooting can also receive up to $100,000 based on the severity of the injuries. While trying to avoid the $100,000 cap, the state has sought creative ways to help the families’ needs, such as a $1.75 million hardship fund in which the victims can draw upon in addition to their direct payments. There will also be a $1.75 million fund that the victim’s families can use to donate money to charities.

Many states have made lawsuit caps to shield themselves from lawsuits, however in most states the cap is much higher than in Virginia. Delegate David B. Albo suggests the Tort Claims Act should be permanently indexed with inflation since $100,000 in 1993 is not $100,000 today. Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw, on the other hand, is scared to raise the cap since it might get rid of sovereign immunity all together. The Virginia Attorney General says the state does settle for more than $100,000 in cases when it believes the state has been grossly negligent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041302553_pf.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb