Commonwealth v. Peterson
N/A (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Even if a special relationship exists between a defendant and a plaintiff, a duty to warn of third-party criminal acts arises only when the harm is known or reasonably foreseeable, a standard not met when information available to authorities prior to a subsequent attack indicates an isolated incident and the perpetrator has likely fled.
Facts:
- On April 16, 2007, at approximately 7:30 a.m., the Virginia Tech Police Department received a call about an incident in the West Ambler Johnston Hall dormitory, where officers found two gunshot victims.
- During the initial investigation, police believed they were investigating a domestic homicide, a "targeted shooting," and that the shooter had fled the area, posing no further danger to others, thus not necessitating a campus lockdown.
- Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger learned of the shooting around 8:00 a.m. and convened a University Policy Group by 8:30 a.m., which was informed that the shootings appeared targeted, likely domestic, and the shooter had likely left campus.
- At approximately 9:26 a.m., Virginia Tech sent a campus-wide "blast e-mail" about a "shooting incident" in West Ambler Johnston Hall, advising students to be alert for anything suspicious.
- At approximately 9:45 a.m., a mass shooting began in Norris Hall, resulting in the murders of Erin Peterson, Julia Pryde, and many others, committed by Seung-Hui Cho.
- Police later determined that the gun used in the West Ambler Johnston Hall shooting matched the one Cho used in Norris Hall, and Cho's bloody clothing contained DNA from a West Ambler Johnston Hall victim, establishing a connection between the two incidents.
Procedural Posture:
- The Administrators of the estates of Erin Nicole Peterson and Julia Kathleen Pryde filed wrongful death claims in Montgomery County Circuit Court against Seung-Hui Cho's estate, the Commonwealth, and eighteen other individuals, including Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger.
- The cases were consolidated, and following certain non-suits and pretrial orders, the Commonwealth remained the sole defendant at trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Administrators, awarding $4 million to each family.
- Upon the Commonwealth's motion, the Circuit Court reduced each verdict to $100,000 in accordance with the Virginia Tort Claims Act (VTCA).
- The Commonwealth moved to set aside the jury verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial due to allegedly erroneous jury instructions, which the trial court denied.
- The Commonwealth appealed the Circuit Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Commonwealth have a duty to warn university students about potential criminal acts by third parties, even when information available at the time suggests an isolated incident and the perpetrator has fled, assuming a special relationship exists between the Commonwealth and the students?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cleo E. Powell
No, the Commonwealth did not have a duty to warn students about the potential for third-party criminal acts under the specific facts of this case. While a special relationship may sometimes create a duty to warn of third-party criminal acts, the degree of foreseeability required depends on the nature of that relationship. For relationships like business owner/invitee (which the trial court instructed, albeit erroneously, for a less stringent standard), a duty to warn of third-party criminal acts only arises if there is an "imminent probability of injury." Even applying the less stringent "known or reasonably foreseeable harm" standard, typically reserved for common carriers, innkeepers, or employers, the facts here were insufficient. Prior to the Norris Hall shootings, the Commonwealth knew only of an isolated shooting believed to be domestic, where the shooter was thought to have fled and posed no danger to others. This limited information, based on police representations in the early stages of investigation, does not rise to the level of known or reasonably foreseeable harm that would impose a duty to warn of subsequent mass criminal acts, particularly when compared to cases where specific prior warnings or a pattern of pervasive criminal activity existed. Therefore, as a matter of law, no duty arose.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for establishing a duty to warn of third-party criminal acts, even when a special relationship, such as that between a university and its students, is assumed to exist. It reinforces that specific, heightened foreseeability is required, emphasizing the factual specificity of such determinations. The decision highlights that police and university officials, acting on initial, limited information, are not held to a standard of perfect foresight regarding evolving threats, especially when early assessments indicate an isolated incident. This ruling may make it more challenging to hold public institutions liable for failures to warn against unforeseeable criminal acts, impacting future negligence claims against schools and other entities in similar contexts.
