Parents of Parkland School Shooting Victim Can Sue Security Guard for Negligence, Florida Court Rules
"Obviously, he [Nikolas Cruz] is the one who’s immediately responsible for this carnage, but there were a lot of people who basically just screwed up, and they could have prevented this and they didn’t," the plaintiffs' lawyer said.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled on “yet another issue emanating from the horrific Parkland shooting in 2018″ on Wednesday, when it shut down a security guard’s attempt to dodge liability for allegedly failing to call a “code red” after seeing Nikolas Cruz arrive at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School moments before a massacre ensued.
Andrew Pollack and Shara Kaplan sued on behalf of their daughter Meadow in April 2018, alleging her life could have been saved if campus security guard Andrew Medina had immediately locked down the school, after seeing Cruz arrive in an Uber carrying a gun bag.
The appellate panel had to decide whether the allegations suggest the guard knew the potential consequences of that decision and did it anyway.
“Taken together, and knowing the extreme danger Cruz posed, Medina’s actions, as alleged, can constitute conscious and intentional indifference to the consequences of his actions and that he knowingly and purposely failed to call the Code Red,” the opinion said.
Cruz, who faces the death penalty, is still awaiting trial over the shooting, but the Fourth DCA assumes all allegations against him are true for purposes of appeal.
Security staff knew who Cruz was, having held a meeting about him the year before, and the lawsuit alleged Medina had commented that, “If there’s gonna be anybody who’s gonna come to this school and shoot this school up, it’s gonna be that kid.”
Medina also recalled following Cruz in a golf cart as Cruz was “walking with a purpose,” according to the amended complaint.
But instead of immediately locking down the school, Medina radioed his colleague about a “suspicious subject.” Within four minutes of arriving, Cruz had killed nine people on the first floor, went on to kill a total of 17, and injured 17 others before leaving undetected.
Medina argued he was entitled to immunity under Florida Statute Section 768.28(9), which shields state officers from liability unless they acted with a willful and wanton disregard for human life.
But the appellate panel found Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning was right to deny the guard’s motion to dismiss, as the allegations exempt him from sovereign immunity.
Medina claimed he didn’t call a code red because he ”didn’t actually visualize a gun and I didn’t really see the shots.”
“Something inside me told me not to approach him [Cruz],” the security guard said, according to the lawsuit.
The complaint claims Medina’s alleged actions were selfish and “unforgivably despicable.”
The Fourth DCA shared a similar sentiment.
“Rather than immediately call a Code Red, which would have locked down the school and prevented Cruz’s entry into any building, Medina radioed his friend in building 12,” the opinion said. “His reason for not calling a Code Red was strictly personal to himself—he didn’t want to be the ‘guy’ who might call in a ‘million’ cops there for nothing. ‘Something’ told him not to do it. Instead, he allowed Cruz to cross the campus and enter building 12, where the carnage began.”
The defendant also argued there wasn’t enough time for willful and wanton disregard, since it only took two minutes for Cruz to enter. But the appellate panel remarked that was “clearly long enough, according to the allegations of the complaint, for Medina to contemplate what actions he should take and reason out why he should not call the Code Red.”
Fourth DCA Judge Martha Warner wrote the ruling, backed by Judges Melanie May and Jeffrey Kuntz. The ruling stressed that jurors might still find Medina’s alleged actions weren’t wanton or willful, but said they were enough to block dismissal.
Medina’s lawyers, David S. Henry and Jordan M. Greenberg of Kelley Kronenberg in Fort Lauderdale, said they were disappointed.
“This decision is not stating Mr. Medina was liable; it states only that the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, if assumed true, allow the case to move forward,” Henry said. “We look forward to demonstrating the actions Mr. Medina took in advance of, and during, the tragedy in order to keep individuals on campus safe.”
Plaintiffs attorney Joel S. Perwin in Miami Beach said his clients are pleased with the ruling and hope it will reinforce the importance of following safety protocols.
“Obviously, he [Cruz] is the one who’s immediately responsible for this carnage, but there were a lot of people who basically just screwed up, and they could have prevented this and they didn’t,” Perwin said. “The parents want them to be held accountable not simply for some kind of revenge, but in order to prevent something like this from happening again.”
Perwin is working with David Brill and Joseph Rinaldi Jr. of Brill & Rinaldi, The Law Firm in Weston, who said, “The ruling is just one more step in our and our clients’ efforts at achieving some justice and holding accountable those, like Medina, who contributed by their misconduct in causing the shooting deaths of 17 innocents and the shooting injuries of 17 more.”
Source: law.com, Raychel Lean, July 1, 2020
⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
 |  |
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde