Wrongful death suit remains
unsettled
By Dave Stephens
Assistant Campus Editor
It's been almost
five years since Wiley Hall counselor Jay Severson discovered Jarrod
Eskew, a freshman resident on Severson’s floor, with cocaine.
On Oct. 15, 1996,
Severson notified the Purdue Police Department, but when the police
arrived at Eskew’s room shortly after, Eskew was gone. The police
found traces of drugs in Eskew’s room and car. The car was taken
to police headquarters and impounded.
The next day, at
2:50 p.m., Eskew fatally shot Severson in Severson’s room, which
was located on the third floor of the northwest wing of Wiley Hall.
Eskew then barricaded himself in his own room, eventually committing
suicide with the 12-gauge shotgun he had used to kill Severson.
An autopsy would
later reveal that Eskew had traces of both marijuana and cocaine in
his system.
Three years after
his death, Severson’s parents filed a wrongful death suit that
names Purdue as a defendant as well as the Board of Trustees, several
Purdue administrators, and employees and officers with the Purdue Police
Department and the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department.
The case was set
to go to trial in February of 2001 but was delayed because of appeals.
The case was further delayed this summer when Purdue entered a motion
to dismiss on July 16.
According to Andrew
Wirick, the lawyer for the Severson's, a hearing is set for Oct. 29
to hear the motions.
"I believe
the motion to dismiss will be denied," said Wirick. "Both
sides have quite good arguments for and against the dismissal."
The motion to dismiss,
entered on behalf of the University, states that "Because many
of the representations of 'fact' asserted in the Opposition are neither
fact nor admissible opinion testimony, the Purdue Defendants object
for the reasons set forth in more detail…"
Some of those reasons
include Purdue disputing the claim that Severson was working on his
homework and therefore not working as a Residence Hall counselor, that
the testimony of Severson's parents is inadmissible because they do
not have personal knowledge of the facts they would testify, and that
the authenticity of some of the testimony is in question.
Wirick said that
a new trial date should be set at the October meeting, but the date
will depend on the judge’s schedule.
"It’s
hard to say when the case will go to trial," said Wirick, "But
maybe by early next year."
|
