Appeals Court Upholds Lawsuits Against Former Sheriff’s Deputy

Background

An appeals court has upheld a ruling that allowed civil lawsuits to move forward against Scot Peterson, a former Broward County sheriff’s deputy and school-resource officer who was accused of failing to properly respond during the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The Shooting and the Aftermath

On February 14, 2018, Nikolas Cruz, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, killed 17 students and faculty members in the shooting. The shooting led to widespread outrage and calls for stricter gun control measures.

The Lawsuits

The lawsuits were filed by victims’ family members and were consolidated in circuit court. The lawsuits alleged that Peterson failed to respond properly to the shooting and that his inaction contributed to the deaths and injuries of the victims.

Peterson’s Defense

Peterson’s attorneys argued that he did not have a legal “duty of care” and pointed to a state sovereign-immunity law that generally shields government employees from personal liability for on-the-job actions. They argued that Peterson was entitled to summary judgment in his favor.

Plaintiffs’ Argument

The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that Peterson had an affirmative duty to respond to the situation by locating, engaging, and neutralizing Cruz. They argued that a police officer who knows that a murderer is shooting and likely killing people in a school has a mandatory operational-level obligation to respond.

The Ruling

The appeals-court panel, made up of Judges Dorian Damoorgian, Spencer Levine, and Alan Forst, rejected Peterson’s argument without explanation. The ruling allows the lawsuits to move forward, and a trial is now possible.

Conclusion

The ruling is a significant victory for the families of the victims, who have been seeking justice and accountability for the harm caused by Peterson’s actions. The case highlights the importance of holding government employees accountable for their actions and the need for greater transparency and accountability in law enforcement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What was the outcome of the appeals court ruling?

A: The appeals court upheld the ruling, allowing the lawsuits to move forward against Scot Peterson.

Q: What were the lawsuits about?

A: The lawsuits alleged that Scot Peterson failed to respond properly to the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and that his inaction contributed to the deaths and injuries of the victims.

Q: What was Scot Peterson’s defense?

A: Peterson’s attorneys argued that he did not have a legal “duty of care” and pointed to a state sovereign-immunity law that generally shields government employees from personal liability for on-the-job actions.

Q: What is the next step in the case?

A: A trial is now possible, as the lawsuits are allowed to move forward.