Jury Finds Parents of Texas High School Shooter Not Liable in Civil Trial
In a closely watched case, a Texas jury has determined that the parents of Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who killed 10 people and left numerous others injured during a mass shooting at Santa Fe High School in 2018, are not legally responsible for their son's deadly attack. This decision came after a three-week civil trial initiated by survivors and families of the victims, who argued that Antonios Pagourtzis and Rose Marie Kosmetatos were negligent in securing their firearms and failed to recognize warning signs of their son’s deteriorating mental health.
Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who was 17 at the time of the shooting, is currently charged with capital murder. However, he has been deemed incompetent to stand trial and is being held at a state mental health facility. The lawsuit brought by the victims' families aimed to hold his parents accountable, alleging that they “negligently stored their firearms” which allowed him access despite clear indications of mental distress. According to the plaintiffs, the parents overlooked key indicators of their son’s violent tendencies, including his fascination with the Columbine High School massacre, disturbing online behavior, and ordering concerning paraphernalia such as a shirt reading, “Born to Kill.”
The jury ultimately assigned legal responsibility to Dimitrios Pagourtzis himself and to Lucky Gunner, an online ammunition retailer. The company sold Pagourtzis more than 100 rounds of ammunition without verifying his age, a failure that plaintiffs argued contributed to the tragic outcome. Lucky Gunner had previously reached a settlement with the families and was no longer a defendant in the case during the trial, yet the jury still attributed some blame to the company.
The verdict awarded over $300 million in damages to the families, covering pain and suffering, as well as mental anguish. However, Lucky Gunner’s CEO, Jake Felde, has asserted that the company “isn’t responsible for any of the monetary damages awarded by the jury,” given its prior settlement.
During the trial, defense attorneys for the parents argued that Dimitrios Pagourtzis was "sneaky" and managed to access the family’s firearms without their knowledge. They emphasized that his parents were unaware of any imminent danger and had not seen any clear warning signs of his intentions. Despite these assertions, the families of the victims maintained that the parents should have been more vigilant given their son’s depressive behavior and social isolation, arguing that their failure to act constituted negligence.
From a legal standpoint, the case hinged on the concept of negligence, particularly whether the parents breached their duty of care by not properly securing their firearms and by failing to address their son’s mental health needs. Negligence in civil law involves proving that a party owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused harm as a result. The jury’s decision suggests that they did not find sufficient evidence that the parents’ actions, or lack thereof, directly caused the tragedy, instead placing more weight on the son’s actions and the role of the ammunition retailer.
