By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Newport News, Virginia, a jury awarded $10 million to former teacher Abby Zwerner, who was shot by a 6-year-old student, after finding former assistant principal Ebony Parker liable for ignoring warnings about the gun. Zwerner, who was shot in January 2023, had sought $40 million in damages, having spent nearly two weeks in the hospital and requiring six surgeries. The lawsuit argued that Parker failed to act on warnings from school staff who reported the student had a gun in his backpack. Parker faces a separate criminal trial this month on charges of felony child neglect, while the student’s mother was sentenced to nearly four years in prison.
Read the original article here
The recent jury verdict of $10 million against a former assistant principal, stemming from a tragic incident where a six-year-old student shot his teacher, is a stark illustration of the devastating consequences of negligence in a school environment. The core of the matter revolves around the ex-assistant principal’s failure to act upon multiple reports that a student was in possession of a firearm. This inaction, the jury concluded, directly contributed to the injury of the teacher, and the financial compensation is intended to acknowledge the severity of the harm inflicted.
The critical question that immediately arises is how a six-year-old gained access to a gun in the first place. The answer, as revealed in the case, is deeply troubling. The child obtained the weapon from his mother’s purse. The mother is now incarcerated, serving time for felony child neglect and weapons charges. This serves as a grim reminder of the vital role of responsible gun ownership and safe storage, particularly when children are involved. The source of the gun being the mother is a pivotal factor in the entire sequence of events and the subsequent legal ramifications.
Now, let’s address the practical implications of this $10 million verdict. The reality is that the ex-assistant principal likely does not have the personal resources to cover this substantial sum. This is where the Virginia Risk Sharing Association (VRSA), a risk-sharing pool for public bodies, enters the picture. It is highly probable that the payout will come from this insurance pool, which is made up of numerous Virginia school policies. However, the situation could be further complicated if the ex-assistant principal is also found guilty in a pending criminal trial. In that scenario, the ability to collect the full amount might be contested. The fact that the school district’s insurer is involved underscores the complexities of these cases, and the likely long-term impact on the insurance costs for educational institutions.
The incident highlights a fundamental principle: schools, like any public space, must prioritize safety. When there is a report of fire, rape, or a gun on school property, immediate action is not just advised, it’s mandatory. There is no room for discretion or delays in situations involving these three serious matters. As a school administrator, immediate action is paramount. The details of the assistant principal’s alleged inaction are difficult to grasp. The allegations that several staff members knew about the gun for hours before anything was done are deeply disturbing.
The question of why other staff members didn’t intervene immediately is also pertinent. School staff members who were aware of the potential danger, perhaps seeing the gravity of the situation, could have attempted to remove the gun from the child’s possession. The legal ramifications for the other staff members who were aware but did nothing are unclear, but it underscores the weight of the moral imperative to act in such circumstances. The situation raises concerns about the potential liability of everyone connected to the incident.
The legal dimension of the case also highlights the issue of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits. The verdict signals the rejection of the assistant principal’s claim of qualified immunity and underlines that the law would be the ultimate authority. The fact that a jury found the ex-assistant principal personally liable underscores the seriousness of the breach of duty and the impact of her inaction. It is not against the town or the district, but against the individual.
It’s easy to feel the weight of the situation when considering the damages, and what that monetary value means to the teacher. This is a lot of money to be awarded, but it’s intended to address the financial and emotional damages the teacher sustained because of the incident. It is intended to reflect the scale of the harms. The verdict isn’t meant to punish; it’s meant to provide compensation. The ex-assistant principal knew of the weapon before the teacher, and the details of the timeline and the backpack search further complicate matters.
The incident forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about parental responsibility, school safety protocols, and the devastating impact of gun violence. It is hard to forget how the parents were also culpable. The negligence of the assistant principal has left a lasting impact. The legal and financial consequences will likely be felt for years to come. Ultimately, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of vigilance, decisive action, and unwavering commitment to the safety and well-being of our children in educational environments.