THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, May 25, 1996 TAG: 9605250504
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 81 lines
Norfolk State University has no legal duty to protect its students from attacks inside student dormitories, a lawyer representing the school argued Friday in Circuit Court.
The university made that argument in response to two lawsuits that accuse the school of failing to protect two students who were shot while sleeping in their dorm room in 1994.
One student died; the other lived. The surviving student and the mother of the slain student sued in December. Each seeks $10 million in damages.
On Friday, Judge Charles Poston heard motions by NSU to dismiss the cases. Poston said he will rule within 10 days.
Norfolk State asked Poston to throw out the lawsuits on two grounds: that the university did not know the attack was going to occur and therefore had no obligation to protect the students, and that Norfolk State and its officials are generally immune from liability as state officials.
The lawsuits name NSU, President Harrison Wilson and Housing Director Madge Sharpe-Williams as defendants.
``There is no duty on the defendants to protect the plaintiffs from criminal acts of third parties. . . ,'' argued Peter Messitt, a lawyer in the state attorney general's office. ``There is no allegation that the defendants had notice of a specific danger just prior to the assault.''
But the plaintiffs' attorney argued that NSU officials knew Scott Hall dorm was dangerous, yet did not change a lock on the students' door after another roommate moved out.
That roommate, Shamont Burrell, later returned to the room, punched in the combination to the door lock, entered the room and shot the sleeping freshmen: Gerard Edwards and Ronald Richardson, both 18. Edwards died. Richardson, who was shot in the abdomen, has recovered.
Attorney Howard J. Marx argued that NSU officials assumed the duty of protecting students in the dorm when they changed dorm room locks from key-operated locks to push-button devices. They did that, Marx said, to make it easier to change locks when roommates move out.
Changing locks is a simple process that takes just two minutes, Marx told the judge.
When the judge asked Marx if Norfolk State has a duty to change locks every time a student moves out of a dorm room, Marx replied, ``Yes, sir.''
``They assumed the burden'' of protection, Marx argued. ``This is a burden Norfolk State had already assumed.''
The judge replied, ``Certainly you can assume the duty. If you assume the duty, you're stuck with the duty.''
The judge also wondered out loud whether Marx could prove that university officials knew an attack was imminent. ``Under this allegation, they may well have evidence to show that,'' Poston said. ``I don't know.''
At the end of the hearing, Poston said he was ``concerned'' about the charge that officials ignored dangers in the dorms, but he did not indicate how he will rule.
In previous criminal trials, some students testified they feared campus violence.
One testified in October that he sought help from school officials to stop violence between student groups, to no avail. A former Scott Hall resident adviser testified in March 1995 that conditions were so dangerous he kept a loaded gun for protection.
After Friday's hearing, Richardson's mother said she holds Norfolk State responsible for the shootings. Her son, who also attended the hearing, now works at a deli counter in New Jersey.
``When you send a student to a college, they have a responsibility to the welfare of your child,'' said the mother, Audrey Whitehurst.
Messitt, the NSU attorney, also argued at Friday's hearing that the university, Wilson and Sharpe-Williams enjoy sovereign immunity - protection from lawsuits for official actions as state employees.
Marx, however, argued that NSU's failure to protect the students was gross negligence - an ``utter disregard'' for the students' safety - and therefore overrode any claim to sovereign immunity.
Poston promised a written ruling within 10 days. If he dismisses the lawsuits based on sovereign immunity, he may not rule at all on the duty-to-protect issue. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
Graphic
WHAT HAPPENED?
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]
KEYWORDS: LAWSUIT MURDER INJURIES
ASSAULT ARREST NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY by CNB