Judge rules against Duquesne basketball players in lawsuits over shooting
The only way Duquesne University could guarantee that students wouldn't fall victim to crimes such as a September 2006 shooting that wounded five basketball players would be to turn its campus into an “armed camp,” a lawyer for the university said on Monday.
“That's really what this case is about,” Steve Zoffer said. “What types of responsibilities are we going to impose on our universities and schools?”
U.S. District Judge David Cercone on Saturday dismissed lawsuits from Stuard Baldonado, Shawn James and Kojoh Mensah, who claimed that lax security allowed two non-students to fire on them as they walked to their dormitories after a dance in the Black Student Union.
Teresa Toriseva, their lawyer, couldn't be reached for comment.
Cercone ruled that the university had no warning or reason to suspect someone would shoot the players and didn't promise to provide them with more security than was present at the dance.
Sam Ashaolu, a fourth victim, unsuccessfully sued the university in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
Judge Ronald Folino dropped the university from the lawsuit in February 2010 for the same reasons Cercone cited. The state Superior Court in May upheld Folino's ruling.
William Goodrich, Ashaolu's lawyer, couldn't be reached for comment.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.