In a recent unanimous decision, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Virginia Tech is not liable for failing to warn students about the shooter who ultimately shot and killed 32 persons and wounded 17 others in April 2007.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted various rules regarding tort liability for third party criminal acts:
- the general rule is that there is no duty to warn or protect another from third party criminal acts;
- narrow exceptions to the general rule exist, but require the existence of a “special relationship”;
- for special relationships such as common carrier / passenger, innkeeper / guest, or employer / employee, there is a duty to warn of third party criminal acts that are “known or reasonably foreseeable”; and
- for special relationships such as business owner / invitee or landlord / tenant, there is a duty to warn of third party criminal acts only when there is “an imminent probability of injury.”
For purposes of analyzing the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the Court assumed—without deciding—the threshold requirement that a “special relationship” existed between Virginia Tech and its students. The Court then concluded:
Here, even if this Court were to apply the less stringent standard of “know or have reasonably foreseen,” there simply are not sufficient facts from which this Court could conclude that the duty to protect students against third party criminal acts arose as a matter of law. In this case, [Virginia Tech] knew that there had been a shooting in a dormitory in which one student was critically wounded and one was murdered. [Virginia Tech] also knew that the shooter had not been apprehended. At that time, [Virginia Tech] did not know who the shooter was, as law enforcement was in the early stages of its investigation of the crime. However, based on representations from three different police departments, Virginia Tech officials believed that the shooting was a domestic incident and that the shooter may have been the boyfriend of one of the victims. Most importantly, based on the information available at that time, the defendants believed that the shooter had fled the area and posed no danger to others. . . . Based on the limited information available to [Virginia Tech] prior to the shootings [ ], it cannot be said that it was known or reasonably foreseeable that students [ ] would fall victim to criminal harm. Thus, as a matter of law, [Virginia Tech] did not have a duty to protect students against third party criminal acts.”
Virginia v. Peterson, Record No. 121717, slip op. at 14–15 (Va. Oct. 31, 2013), 2013 Va. LEXIS 132.