The Cochran Firm, D.C. Launches Investigation into Claims Arising from the Navy Yard Shooting

Online, September 25, 2013 (Newswire.com) - The Cochran Firm, D.C. today announces it is opening an active and aggressive investigation into legal claims arising from the tragic Washington Navy Yard shooting on September 16, 2013. After being recently contacted by some of the victims impacted by this terrible mass shooting, The Cochran Firm, D.C. intends to fully analyze and explore all legal options.

"There are many questions about this mass shooting that need to be asked, including why security procedures allegedly did not prevent an individual with a known history of run-ins with the law and severe mental illness from entering a military facility with dangerous weapons and carried out a tragic and deadly mass shooting," David Haynes, managing partner of The Cochran Firm, D.C., said. "Victims of this horrible tragedy want and deserve answers."

Mass shootings can sometimes happen because of poor oversight, inadequate management, or other allegedly negligent actions. The civil justice system allows those who have been hurt by others' wrongdoing to hold them accountable. Legal claims may be able to determine whether a tragedy was the result of negligent oversight that put the public at unreasonable risk.

For more than nine years, mass shooter Aaron Alexis had a history of violent and erratic behavior that was allegedly ignored, overlooked, or dismissed by his employer, the military, police, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Washington Post reported on Sept. 21, 2013. Alexis's alleged criminal history included using a gun to shoot out a stranger's tires, an arrest for using a gun to blast a hole in his apartment neighbor's floor, damaging furniture in a nightclub, anger management problems, and reported hearing voices, the Washington Post reported on Sept. 17, 2013. The same company that performed a background check on NSA leaker Edward Snowden vetted Alexis and is under criminal investigation related to charges it allegedly lied about the thoroughness of its background checks, the Washington Post reported on Sept. 19, 2013.

In a report released on Sept. 16, 2013, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Defense concluded after a year-long audit that the Navy did not adequately control risks posed by outside contractors like Aaron Alexis at the Washington Navy Yard and other naval facilities. Because of this poor control, the IG report found that 52 convicted felons received routine, unauthorized access, placing military personnel, dependents, civilians, and installations at an increased security risk.

The Cochran Firm, D.C. is investigating these and other issues as it relates to claims arising from the Washington Navy Yard shooting. Other potential claims that may arise in a mass shooting lawsuit include, but are not limited to:

• Alleged failure to ensure premises was operated in a reasonable manner in order to ensure the premises were reasonably safe from violent crime

• Alleged failure to employ a sufficient number of armed security guards

• Alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress

• Alleged loss of companionship

• Alleged failure to use reasonable care to discover foreseeable dangerous conditions

• Alleged negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and providing secret-level security clearance

• Alleged inadequate surveillance or monitoring of suspicious activity

David Haynes, managing partner with The Cochran Firm, D.C., is available for comment regarding the investigation into claims arising from the Washington Navy Yard shooting.

To learn more about legal claims involving the Washington Navy Yard shooting, please visit http://www.cochranfirmdc.com/navy-yard-shooting-victim-lawyer/.

Because mass shootings have sadly become a more common occurrence, legal claims following these tragedies are not an uncommon venue for victims to seek relief. Following the Fort Hood shooting in 2009, the Associated Press reported on Nov. 5, 2013 that 148 victims and family members sued the U.S. government alleging negligence and are seeking compensation over the attack. The Fort Hood lawsuit, titled Manning et al. v. McHugh et al. was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 5, 2013 with case number 1:2012cv01802.

In Colorado, several mass shooting lawsuits were filed in federal court against the theater where the Aurora shooting occurred. On April 17, 2013, the Denver Post reported that a federal judge ruled the suits against Cinemark, the theater's owner, may proceed. Some of the Aurora shooting lawsuits that have been filed in Colorado District Court include Moser v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. et al, case number 1:2013cv01995, filed on July 26, 2013 and Johnson et al. v. Century Theaters, Inc. et al., case number 1:2013cv00114, which was filed on Jan. 17, 2013.

In Minnesota, a lawsuit was filed by the family member of a victim shot in the Accent Signage Systems mass shooting, which left five dead. On July 2, 2013, the Associated Press reported that a Minnesota court ruled negligence allegations against the victim's employer may go forward. The Accent Signage mass shooting lawsuit is titled Beneke et al. v. Accent Signage Systems, Inc. et al., case number 27-CV-13-1268, and was filed in Minnesota's Hennepin County District Court on Jan. 22, 2013.