NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — A jury has determined that former assistant principal Ebony Parker exhibited gross negligence by failing to act on warnings that a 6-year-old student had brought a gun to Richneck Elementary School, which ultimately resulted in the shooting of first-grade teacher Abigail Zwerner. The jury awarded Zwerner $10 million in damages on Thursday, reflecting the serious consequences of the incident that occurred on January 6, 2023.
During the trial, it was revealed that Zwerner was shot in both the hand and the chest by the young boy. Testimonies from other teachers indicated that they had alerted Parker about concerns regarding the child having a firearm in his backpack prior to the shooting. Despite these multiple warnings, Parker did not take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of students and staff. Zwerner’s attorney emphasized that school protocols mandated immediate action once a potential threat was reported.
Parker’s defense, articulated by attorney Sandra Douglas, argued that her client did not bear a legal obligation to protect Zwerner and downplayed the perceived inaction as not constituting gross negligence. Meanwhile, Parker faces separate charges of felony child abuse and neglect, with proceedings expected to commence later in November. This legal situation complicates Zwerner’s case further, as she could find herself in a position of desiring Parker’s acquittal even after being awarded damages.
Should Parker be found criminally liable, the Virginia Risk Sharing Association (VRSA), which would typically cover the financial penalties, could potentially deny payment for Zwerner’s settlement. Legal experts suggest that a guilty verdict might absolve the insurance providers from responsibility, arguing that Parker’s actions could be classified as egregious enough to fall outside of coverage.
Despite the legal complexities, there may be a chance that insurance managers choose to compensate Zwerner regardless of the criminal outcome. This scenario echoes the notion of personal responsibility where a parent may voluntarily cover damages caused by their child.
The court’s decision highlights the pressing need for school administrations to take threats seriously and underscores the importance of safeguarding students within educational environments. As this case unfolds, it stands as a cautionary tale about the responsibilities of school officials in ensuring a safe environment for both faculty and students.