What Happens When Your Car Is Totalled but Still Drivable?
A serious collision doesn’t always leave your vehicle undrivable. In fact, many drivers walk away from an accident only to learn, often with surprise, that their car has been deemed a “total loss” even though it can still be driven off the lot. This situation creates confusion, disputes with insurers, and concerns about compensation. Understanding […]
How Southwest Weather Complicates Vehicle Negligence Claims
The Southwest’s extreme climate throws a wrench into motor vehicle accident cases. Sudden dust storms, flash flooding, and heat-releated mechanical failures all muddy the waters when determining who is at fault. You need to understand how these conditions affect your case. How Weather Affects Driver Responsibility Living in the Southwest means dealing with predictable seasonal […]
How Long Do You Have to File a Claim After a Tucson Car Accident?
Getting into a car accident can turn your life upside down, especially when dealing with injuries and mounting bills. If you were hurt in a crash here in Tucson, Arizona, the most crucial thing to figure out right away is how much time you have to file a lawsuit. If you miss that deadline, you […]
When to Call a Lawyer After a Houston Car Accident
A car accident is over in a second, but the aftermath can feel endless, confusing, and completely overwhelming especially when you’re dealing with the chaos of a busy city. In Houston, the risk is real. The city unfortunately leads Texas in crashes, with more than 64,000 crashes reported in 2023. Given the high risk of […]
Why ‘Fender Benders’ Can Still Lead to Lawsuits
Even low-speed car accidents can lead to serious legal issues beyond insurance claims. What seems minor at first may cause hidden injuries, disputed fault, and costly repairs. Protecting your rights and financial security requires an understanding of these hidden complexities. This article covers why a seemingly minor accident can lead to a lawsuit. The Reality […]
The Road to Recovery After an Accident
Accidents happen without warning, and the days that follow feel chaotic. Depending on the nature of the accident, you may be dealing with medical appointments, insurance calls, financial worries, and emotional shock. While this is a lot to manage, you can make it less stressful with a little help, protecting both your health and your […]
Who is Legally Responsible for a Hunting Accident in Michigan?
The Detroit Lions aren’t the only ones hunting this season. November marks a prime time for hunters across Michigan, with firearm deer season running from November 15–30. Thousands head into the woods each year, and while most follow safety rules, accidents can still happen. Whether you are a hunter or a bystander, it is important to understand your legal rights and what to do if injured in a hunting accident.
What to Do After a Hunting Accident
If you are injured while hunting, taking the right steps can protect both your health and your legal claim:
Get Medical Help Immediately: Your safety comes first. Even if injuries seem minor, they should be evaluated by a doctor and properly documented.
Document the Scene: Take photos or videos of the area, any weapons or equipment involved, and your injuries. Collect names and contact details from any witnesses.
Report the Incident: Notify local law enforcement or the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as soon as possible. An official report helps establish what happened and who may be responsible.
Contact an Attorney: An experienced Michigan hunting accident lawyer can explain your legal options and help you pursue compensation.
Who Can Be Held Legally Responsible After a Hunting Accident?
Liability depends on how the accident occurred and who was involved. Common causes include:
Negligent Hunters: If another hunter acted carelessly, like firing without identifying their target, ignoring firearm safety, or hunting outside legal hours, they may be held responsible for injuries.
Unsafe Property Conditions: Landowners who allow hunting have a duty to warn guests of known hazards. They may be liable through a premises liability claim for injuries caused by hidden dangers, such as a faulty tree stand or unsafe terrain.
Trespassing: Hunters who enter private property without permission and cause harm may face both legal and civil consequences.
Common Defendants for Hunting Injuries
Depending on the circumstances, several parties could be held accountable, including:
Other hunters
Manufacturers of defective hunting equipment
Retailers or gun dealers
Property owners
Gun owners who allowed the unsafe use of a firearm
A hunting accident lawyer can help determine who is responsible and ensure all liable parties are held accountable.
Filing a Michigan Hunting Accident Claim
If someone is injured or killed in a hunting accident, the at-fault party may be held legally responsible for the resulting losses. To recover compensation, the victim or their family must prove negligence. This means showing that the responsible hunter or property owner failed to act safely or reasonably, such as firing carelessly, neglecting safety rules, or hunting while intoxicated.
These cases can be sensitive, especially when friends or relatives are involved. However, it is important to remember that most settlements are paid by insurance, not individuals personally.
In Michigan, homeowner’s insurance often covers injuries caused by a negligent hunter. Some firearm or hunting organizations also offer liability coverage for their members. A hunting accident lawyer can identify available insurance coverage and pursue fair compensation on your behalf.
Protecting Your Rights After an Injury
Hunting accidents can lead to serious injuries and long recovery times. Understanding your rights under Michigan law is the first step toward protecting yourself.
Immigration Enforcement and Personal Injury Litigation: Legal Challenges and Strategic Responses
Immigration enforcement has reached record levels in 2025, creating measurable business disruption for personal injury attorneys nationwide. With over 300,000 deportations, marking the highest pace since 2014, personal injury practices face significant operational challenges that directly impact their bottom line.
These actions create ripple effects throughout case development and firm finances. Immigration related complications extend case resolution periods, forcing firms to carry operational expenses longer while delaying the contingency fee collections they depend on for cash flow. When clients fear deportation, they often abandon cases mid-litigation, leaving attorneys with total revenue loss on what would otherwise be viable claims.
The situation becomes more complex during settlement negotiations. Defense attorneys are increasingly incentivized to exploit immigration concerns to pressure plaintiffs into accepting reduced settlements, knowing that fear can override sound legal strategy.
Meanwhile, the $4.5 billion legal funding market offers minimal specialization for these complex cases, leaving attorneys without the financial support they need to weather extended timelines.
This market disruption also creates strategic opportunities for forward-thinking firms. Attorneys who develop immigration focused capabilities can capture significant market share from competitors who avoid complex cases entirely. Firms are exploring various operational and financial strategies to manage these challenges.
The Current Immigration Enforcement Reality
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) completed 271,484 deportations in 2024, the highest single-year total since 2010. The pace accelerated in 2025, with daily deportation rates reaching 850 people in May compared to 240 per day in 2023. What makes this enforcement different is its broad scope: only around 30 percent of current detainees have criminal convictions, with 70 percent being non-criminal illegal immigrants.
These enforcement initiatives can have a direct impact on personal injury attorneys’ client base. For example, about 30 percent of workers in the construction industry – a group at particularly high risk for injury – are immigrants. Even in sanctuary jurisdictions like California, high numbers of immigrants create community-wide fear that affects case development. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is offering $1,000 and a flight to self-deport as part of voluntary programs to encourage departures. Miami-Dade County has the most pending Immigration Court deportation cases with 147,000.
Immigration enforcement operations now extend into formerly protected “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship, following the early-2025 repeal of previous safeguards. This shift has deepened fear within immigrant communities and may discourage individuals—even those pursuing personal-injury claims—from participating in the legal system.
How Deportation Fears Change Personal Injury Cases
Immigration concerns, particularly fears of deportation among undocumented or non-citizen clients, fundamentally reshape personal injury (PI) litigation. These cases demand unique approaches to client communication, evidence gathering, and defense strategies, as immigration status introduces legal, cultural, and logistical complexities. Attorneys face extended timelines, higher costs, and increased case abandonment, straining contingency fee models.
Understanding these dynamics enables firms to adapt practices, allocate resources effectively, and identify cases needing specialized support to secure fair outcomes.
1. Timeline Extensions Create Cash Flow Problems
Standard personal injury cases typically resolve in 12 to 18 months. Cases involving undocumented immigrants often take 24 to 36 months due to complications like language barriers and documentation issues. With increased immigration enforcement, practitioners should expect even longer lifecycles. This extended timeline strains contingency fee practices, as attorneys must manage higher caseloads longer, increasing overhead costs and delaying revenue.
2. Client Communication Becomes More Complex
Fear makes immigrant clients harder to reach and more likely to relocate without notice, delaying personal injury cases. Professional translation costs $100 to $300 per hour for depositions and court. Document translation runs $0.10 to $0.40 per word. Bilingual staff command 10 to 25 percent salary premiums in competitive markets. These costs may increase as enforcement disincentives immigrant members who regularly perform these functions from participating in litigation.
3. Defense Tactics Specifically Target Immigration Status
Insurance and defense attorneys often calculate future earnings using home country wage rates, not U.S. standards, to reduce payouts. They challenge credibility via tax history and use immigration status threats to pressure immigrants into low settlements, constitutional due process rights and state-specific protections.
4. Evidence Gathering Complications Increase Costs
Immigrant clients often lack pay stubs, medical records, or IDs, requiring costly alternative evidence like affidavits. Medical treatment gaps from deportation fears weaken damage claims. Fearful witnesses in immigrant communities avoid cooperation, delaying cases and increasing attorney time and expenses in personal injury litigation.
5. Case Abandonment Creates Revenue Loss
Deportation fears cause many immigrant clients to abandon viable personal injury cases, leading to complete revenue loss for contingency fee firms that invest significant time and costs. Anxious clients, wary of prolonged exposure to authorities, often demand early settlements, accepting lowball insurance offers that drastically reduce potential payouts and firm profits.
These challenges create a distinct practice environment, requiring attorneys to rethink case management and financial strategies. Firms must invest in bilingual staff, cultural competency training, and trusted community networks to maintain client engagement and counter defense tactics. Partnering with litigation funding providers can offset upfront costs and stabilize cash flow. By anticipating immigration-related hurdles, attorneys can better advocate for clients, ensuring equitable compensation despite systemic barriers.
The Business Impact on Personal Injury Law Firms’ Revenue
Immigration enforcement disrupts personal injury law firms by cutting revenue through case delays, client abandonment, and rushed settlements. These issues challenge contingency fee models and demand creative solutions to maintain financial stability and client trust.
Key Financial and Operational Impacts
Revenue Losses from Abandonment and Settlements: Undocumented immigrant clients often abandon cases due to deportation fears, causing firms to lose potential contingency fees and costs like expert fees or translation expenses. Rushed settlements, driven by client anxiety, further reduce payouts and firm revenue.
Cash Flow Strain from Extended Timelines: Longer case timelines, often 50 percent longer than the standard 12 to 18 months, force firms to cover expenses like staff salaries and office rent while waiting for delayed payouts, which creates significant cash flow challenges.
Strained Vendor Relationships: Financial pressure disrupts timely payments to expert witnesses, medical providers, and court reporters who expect prompt compensation. This strain sometimes leads firms to turn down viable cases they would normally accept, limiting growth.
Increased Staff Turnover and Training Costs: Serving vulnerable undocumented immigrant clients increases burnout, leading to higher staff turnover. Training new staff in cultural competency and bilingual skills adds costs, including salary premiums of 10 to 25 percent in competitive markets.
Rising Insurance Premiums: Complex immigration related cases may increase professional liability insurance premiums due to heightened malpractice risks from intricate legal intersections, adding to firm expenses.
Market Advantages through Community Trust: On the positive side of the ledger, firms that invest in cultural competency and build trust with immigrant communities gain a strong market position. Word-of-mouth referrals in close-knit networks boost caseloads and support long-term growth.
By adopting tailored strategies, firms can navigate these challenges effectively. Litigation funding helps cover upfront costs and stabilize cash flow. Investing in cultural competency training and community engagement builds trust, driving referrals and fostering sustainable growth in immigrant-focused practices. This approach not only mitigates financial losses but also positions firms as leaders in handling immigration impacted cases, distinguishing them from competitors focused solely on standard PI matters.
Current Legal Funding Options Fall Short
The U.S. legal funding industry, valued at $4.5 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $9.7 billion by 2032, offers vital support for personal injury litigants facing high upfront costs. However, most providers deliver generic solutions that overlook immigration specific hurdles, leaving firms serving undocumented clients underserved amid longer case timelines and unique evidentiary challenges. This gap not only limits access to non-recourse advances but also stifles growth in a niche market ripe for specialized innovation.
1. Inadequate Underwriting for Undocumented Clients
Traditional legal funding companies rely on pay stubs, tax returns, employment records, and credit checks to evaluate personal injury cases. Undocumented workers often lack these documents, making it nearly impossible to meet standard criteria. This excludes a vulnerable population needing financial support during prolonged case timelines of 24 to 36 months.
2. Language and Cultural Barriers Restrict Funding Access
While some legal funding companies offer Spanish translation, few provide comprehensive bilingual services for immigrant clients. True cultural competency requires understanding community dynamics, family obligations, and deportation fears that shape decision making. Without tailored support, these barriers limit access to funding for vulnerable populations in personal injury cases.
3. Uniform Pricing Overlooks Immigration Case Risks
Standard 2 to 4 percent monthly interest rates rely on uniform underwriting that ignores the higher risks and extended timelines of immigration affected personal injury cases. This leaves clients with limited funding access and providers missing a profitable market segment that demands specialized, risk adjusted financing solutions.
4. No Immigration Law Expertise Integration
Legal funding companies typically focus purely on case strength without understanding how immigration status affects litigation strategy, settlement timing, and evidence availability. This knowledge gap leads to poor funding decisions and missed opportunities in a growing market.
The combination of these limitations creates a massive underserved market opportunity. Firms serving immigration impacted personal injury cases need funding partners who understand their specific challenges and can provide appropriate solutions.
How Firms Are Responding to These Market Conditions
Personal injury practices serving undocumented immigrant populations are implementing several operational adaptations. Many firms report conducting internal assessments of their current caseloads to identify immigration-related complications and quantify their financial impact. This includes calculating revenue losses from abandoned cases and rushed settlements, as well as evaluating staff capabilities for handling multilingual client communication.
Firms are also restructuring their financial relationships. Some are exploring litigation funding arrangements specifically designed for cases with extended timelines and nontraditional documentation. Others are developing partnerships with immigration attorneys to provide coordinated representation when clients face removal proceedings.
Market positioning has become increasingly important. Successful firms are building referral networks with immigration advocacy organizations and establishing reputations within immigrant communities through cultural competency demonstrations. This word-of-mouth marketing proves particularly effective given the close-knit nature of many immigrant communities.
Conclusion
The intersection of heightened immigration enforcement and personal injury litigation presents complex legal and ethical challenges that demand careful attention from practitioners. While these cases involve extended timelines, communication barriers, and unique evidentiary issues, attorneys have legal and ethical obligations to provide zealous representation regardless of a client’s immigration status.
Several key legal principles remain constant: undocumented plaintiffs retain the right to pursue tort claims in all U.S. jurisdictions; courts have consistently rejected attempts to reduce damages based solely on immigration status in most contexts; and attorney-client privilege protections apply equally to all clients. Practitioners should familiarize themselves with relevant case law in their jurisdiction, particularly decisions addressing damages calculations and evidentiary standards when immigration status is raised as a defense.
Firms handling these cases should consider developing specific protocols: establish relationships with immigration counsel for referrals when clients face removal proceedings; implement cultural competency training for staff to better serve diverse client populations; and create systems to maintain client contact despite increased mobility and communication challenges.
The current enforcement environment makes it critical for personal injury attorneys to understand how immigration issues affect case strategy, settlement negotiations, and client counseling. Those who develop expertise in navigating these complexities will be better positioned to provide effective representation to an underserved client population while maintaining ethical obligations and practice sustainability.
As immigration enforcement policies continue to evolve, personal injury practitioners should monitor developments in both immigration law and tort law to ensure they can competently represent clients at this challenging intersection of legal practice areas.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review (NLR). The NLR does not answer legal questions, nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor. Please see NLR’s terms of use.
New Research Shows Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Symptoms Can Persist for Years
For many years, patients who sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, often referred to simply as a concussion, were told that their symptoms should resolve within a few weeks or months. A new longitudinal study published in Brain Injury, however, reinforces what many survivors and clinicians already know: for a substantial number of people, these symptoms do not simply fade away. They linger—often for years.
The study followed 142 adults who were hospitalized after a mild TBI and assessed them repeatedly over a four-year period. At every checkpoint—four, eight, twelve, twenty-four, thirty-six, and forty-eight months after injury—at least forty-five percent of participants continued to report three or more clinically significant symptoms. This is a striking finding because it directly contradicts the commonly quoted expectation that concussion symptoms should dissipate within the first three months. The most persistent and prevalent symptoms were fatigue, insomnia, and cognitive complaints, each of which affected more than half of participants throughout the study. Other symptoms such as anxiety, depression, headaches, and dizziness often emerged in combination with these core difficulties.
The presence of multiple symptoms had a profound effect on daily life. Individuals who reported three or more symptoms consistently scored in the “poor” range on validated quality-of-life measures. Their ability to participate in social roles and everyday community activities declined in parallel with their symptom burden. The impact on work was particularly significant. Four years after injury, participants who had no ongoing symptoms had returned to work at rates exceeding ninety percent. In stark contrast, those with five to seven symptoms had return-to-work rates hovering around twenty-eight percent. These numbers powerfully illustrate how persistent post-concussive symptoms can derail careers, independence, relationships, and overall well-being long after the initial trauma.
Perhaps even more concerning is the pattern of diminishing healthcare access over time. Early after injury, most individuals with a high number of symptoms were receiving specialized care. By thirty-six to forty-eight months post-injury, however, only about half of those with the most severe symptom burden continued to receive treatment. This decline may reflect cost, insurance limitations, limited access to specialty care, or simply the mistaken belief that nothing more can be done.
The findings of this study highlight a crucial shift in how mild TBI should be understood. Symptoms that persist beyond the first few months are not rare outliers; they are a common reality. Recognizing the significance of ongoing symptoms is essential, not only for clinicians but also for families, employers, and legal professionals. A threshold of three or more symptoms was consistently associated with diminished quality of life, reduced social participation, and lower return-to-work rates. This makes it a meaningful indicator of when individuals may require comprehensive, interdisciplinary support.
Ultimately, this research underscores the importance of long-term care for concussion survivors. A “mild” brain injury can carry severe, life-altering consequences. Many patients continue to struggle years after their injury, often without appropriate treatment. Understanding the long-term nature of these symptoms is critical in ensuring that individuals receive the care, recognition, and support they need. For survivors who continue to experience persistent symptoms, it is essential to know that recovery timelines vary widely and that the persistence of symptoms does not reflect personal failure. It reflects the reality of an injury whose effects can be far more enduring than commonly understood.
This article incorporates findings from Cairns et al., “Symptom burden in the first four years following hospitalization after mild traumatic brain injury,” Brain Injury (2025).
The Buck Stops Here—or Does It? Illinois’ Pre-Judgment Interest Statute Continues to Pack a Punch in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases
Illinois’ pinnacle case on pre-judgment interest statute 735 ILCS 5/2-1303(c) (Section 1303(c)), Cotton v. Coccaro[1], laid pivotal groundwork for parties to seek additional recovery in personal injury and wrongful death claims. The Cotton court affirmed the imposition of pre-judgment interest on plaintiffs $6,528,000.00 medical malpractice verdict and upheld the constitutionality of Section 1303(c) on three bases. First, the court found that Section 1303(c) promotes the jury’s function to accurately calculate damages. Second, it provides compensation for a plaintiff’s delay in being made whole via the passage of time. Third, it promotes a fairer and more even disbursement of damages to successful tort plaintiffs. Illinois courts have recently clarified these concepts in several key respects.
Some advocates have tried to expand Section 1303(c)’s reach in the wake of Cotton. However, Concrete Structures/Sachi, J.V. v. Clark/Bulley/OVC/Power[2] confirms that the concept of interest is fact-specific. Illinois has several separate pre-judgment interest statutes, each of which addresses defined and distinct circumstances. The Concrete court relied on Cotton and its interpretation of Section 1303(c) to ultimately deny plaintiff’s request for pre-judgment interest via the Illinois Public Construction Bond Act[3] and/or Illinois Interest Act[4]. While Concrete echoes the policy concerns raised in Cotton, it refused to expand the reach of Section 1303(c) to breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims which were not contemplated by this statute. Concrete’s refusal to blur the lines between Section 1303(c) and the other Illinois statutes that address interest confirm the importance of its specific and narrow interpretation.
Recent case law also reminds litigants that Section 1303(c) grants Illinois courts discretion to modify both trial verdicts and alternative dispute resolution awards. This is highlighted by the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of Jordan v. Macedo[5], which holds that: (i) one’s failure to seek pre-judgment interest at arbitration does not constitute a waiver of that right; and (ii) application of pre-judgment interest to an arbitration award does not conflict with Supreme Court Rules preventing substantive modifications of arbitration awards. The Jordan decision is based on the fact that Section 1303(c) is procedural in nature as pre-judgment interest is incurred exclusively by the passage of time. Thus, the statute functions as a statutory additur (applicable upon the satisfaction of certain conditions) versus a component of tort damages.
Kroft v. Viper Trans, Inc.[6] takes the reasoning employed through Jordan a step further, holding that application of pre-judgment interest via Section 1303(c) is mandatory where a party intentionally causes delays in personal injury or wrongful death proceedings. In Kroft, the court upheld an award of prejudgment interest under Section 1303(c), including the time after a new trial was granted because the defendant’s willful misconduct (e.g., showing highly prejudicial evidence to the jury) was the root cause of the new trial order. The Kroft decision is punitive in nature and confirms that the plain language of Section 1303(c) remains applicable to all personal injury and wrongful death cases, gamesmanship asid.
The final and most interesting elaboration of Cotton comes via Johnson v. Advoc. Health & Hosps.[7], whichclarifies what kind of settlement offers count under Section 1303(c). In Johnson, the court rejected the parties’ “high-low” settlement structure as a formal “offer” under Section 1303(c) given its conditional nature. Said differently, high-low settlement offers may fail under Section 1303(c) if a verdict falls within a high-low settlement range for which no hard “offer” exists. Under this scenario, any formal settlement offer is moot. However, the Johnson court conceded one key scenario in which high-low settlement offers can work, though left entirely up to chance: where a jury verdict falls outside of the agreed-upon settlement range. Such a verdict formally triggers either the “high” or the “low” offer, which becomes binding upon the parties. The Johnson holding confirms that a “high-low” settlement offer is a risky one that may not effectively thwart the application of prejudgment interest.
These post Cotton decisions reinforce the need to keep a close eye on 735 ILCS 5/2-1303(c) as it evolves. Chuhak & Tecson maintains its dedication to advising its clients and the public on this issue and welcomes the opportunity to answer any corresponding questions.
Client alert authored by Loretto M. Kennedy (312 855 5444), principal and General Counsel and Adrienne M. Arlan (312 855 4315), associate. This Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. communication is intended only to provide information regarding developments in the law and information of general
[1] Cotton v. Coccaro, 468 Ill.Dec. 563 (Ill. 2023).
[2] Concrete Structures/Sachi, J.V. v. Clark/Bulley/OVC/Power, 2024 IL App (1st) 240082, ¶ 1, 7-8, 13 appeal denied, 251 N.E.3d 412 (Ill. 2025).
[3] 30 ILCS 550/2.
[4] 815 ILCS 205/2.
[5] Jordan v. Macedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 230079, ¶¶ 29-32, 244 N.E.3d 341, 349–50, appeal allowed, 244 N.E.3d 250 (Ill. 2024), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2025 IL 130687, ¶¶ 29-32.
[6] Kroft v. Viper Trans, Inc., 2025 IL App (1st) 240220, ¶¶ 73-75.
[7] Johnson v. Advoc. Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230087, ¶¶ 73-89, as modified on denial of reh’g (June 11, 2025), appeal pending (Sep Term 2025).
Teacher’s $10 Million Jury Award in School Shooting Case Highlights Administrators’ Duties to Heed Violence Threats
An elementary school teacher shot by a six-year-old student was recently awarded $10 million in damages by a jury in Virginia, according to multiple reports. The case was brought against the former assistant principal, who allegedly failed to act on a warning that the student had a gun. The case, along with the substantial damages awarded, underscores concerns regarding school safety and the responsibility of school administrators to take measures to protect students and staff.
Quick Hits
A Virginia jury awarded $10 million to a teacher shot by a six-year-old student, highlighting the responsibilities of school administrators to address and act on threats to safety.
The case underlines the legal and ethical duty of school officials to implement effective safety measures and policies to prevent school violence and protect students and staff.
The Virginia teacher was shot in the chest and hand in the classroom in January 2023 and suffered serious injuries, according to reports. She sued a now-former assistant principal who reportedly failed to act after multiple warnings that a student had a gun in the student’s backpack.
The jury award comes as the ex-assistant principal is also facing a separate criminal trial on eight felony counts of child neglect. The student’s mother, who owned the gun used in the incident, has already reportedly pleaded guilty to felony charges for child neglect and weapons charges, according to reports
While the ex-assistant principal can still appeal the civil damages award, the award highlights the potential liability schools and individual administrators may face from school shootings or other violent incidents, and has brought attention to appropriate responses to safety concerns and the role school administrators have in maintaining school safety.
Legal Obligations for Schools and School Administrators
Generally, school administrators have a legal duty of care to provide a safe environment for students and staff, including taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. Failure to take appropriate measures or act on credible threats can result in legal liability or negligence. Some states also have laws requiring school districts and school district administrators to create and implement safety plans, to run safety drills, and to train students and staff on incident response. Beyond legal obligations, school administrators may have ethical duties to foster a safe and supportive school environment. This verdict highlights the need to thoroughly assess all warnings and threats to maintain that duty of care.
Safety Steps
Prevention and Preparedness—Implementing should consider implementing measures for safety assessment and programs for behavioral intervention when necessary. Administrators may want to review state laws and regulations, as some states require or encourage schools to implement such measures or provide behavioral health resources. Additionally, schools may consider heeding and investigating all potential concerns, violence threats, and warnings, no matter how unlikely they may seem. School districts can partner with local law enforcement agencies to support administrators in investigating whether threats are credible. Regular training and drills for dealing with emergencies can further prepare students and staff on how to respond in the event of an emergency. Moreover, implementing clear access control measures, including secure entry points, visitor management protocols, and issuing identification badges to students and staff, can provide further protection against external threats.
Policies and Procedures—Schools may also want to develop and regularly update comprehensive emergency response plans that cover a range of scenarios, from lockdowns, evacuations, and reunification procedures. Again, schools may want to review state laws that may require various policies and procedures to be implemented. It is also important to establish reliable communication systems and channels to notify students, staff, and parents in the event of an emergency.
Community Collaboration—School administrators may want to take steps to communicate and collaborate with local law enforcement agencies, parents, transportation companies, news media, and other community organizations to implement safety plans. Communication between schools and parents can further be key to identifying concerns.
Supportive School Climate—Schools may want to implement or supplement policies that promote positive behavior among students and that provide support for students and staff, such as access to counseling and mental health services. Schools can also encourage students to report concerning behavior and offer anonymous reporting hotlines.
Post-Incident Response—Post-incident intervention is also an important step, including communication with students, staff, parents, and local law enforcement, and providing counseling and support to students and staff following a traumatic event. Schools may also want to conduct thorough reviews of incident response and prevention policies and update procedures accordingly.
Next Steps
The Virginia teacher shooting case highlights the need for school administrators to address violent threats and take responsible steps to prevent violent incidents. School administrators who take proactive steps to implement behavioral interventions can help foster a supportive educational culture. Schools that lack such procedures and resources may be more susceptible to preventable school violence incidents and increased liability for schools and administrators.
The Role of Evidence in Winning a Reckless Driving Accident Case
Being involved in a car accident is a jarring experience. When that collision was caused by another driver’s reckless behavior, like weaving through traffic at high speed, running a red light, or texting behind the wheel, the frustration and sense of injustice can be overwhelming. You know you deserve compensation for your injuries, vehicle damage, […]