If I read the article correctly, he’s not trying to sue the school, he’s suing the State of Connecticut. His case sounds pretty cut and dried. He says that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, that the State knew or should have known that a gunman could attack the school and kill the kids.
Given that there are “active shooter” protocols, it would be difficult for the State to prove that it had not foreseen the event.
The State would appear to have two defenses. First, sovereign immunity. You can’t sue a State unless the State lets you. They could just quash it if they wanted to. That’s why he’s “seeking permission to sue,” and not just suing. The second defense is that they foresaw the harm and took reasonable measures to prevent that harm. They locked the glass door and provided a buzzer. They would have to claim that they could not have reasonably foreseen that the gunman would simply shoot the door out and climb in through the hole.
In the end, it looks like the lawyer will argue that the State, having a duty to care, failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent a reasonably foreseeable harm, thus failing their duty.
It will be interesting for two reasons. First, if I was the lawyer, I’d subpeona the NRA and have them testify that posting armed security, either a cop or an armed staff member, was a “reasonable precaution.” And secondly, I can’t wait to hear the State say, “Hey, we did all we could. Sorry your kids got murdered, but a locked door is all you get.” Or even worse “We have no duty to prevent harm to the children we force to attend.”
Either argument is a loser. I predict that the State will refuse permission to sue.