UT appealed the decision to court, claiming it provided adequate security and had given safety warnings to students.
Demonstrably false on its face, considering what actually happened. Moreover, a mere "warning" is unimportant, since policy prevents students from proactively taking the most effective steps possible to provide for their own safety.
I would have been a lot happier if the damages were awarded because they prevented her from having the means to protect herself.
When policies specifically prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons - even if licensed by the state to do so - it is
reasonably forseeable that the person is at increased risk. So by establishing a victim disarmament zone, the policymaking body is, in effect, assuming responsibilty for every person's safety. If any person subsequently is the victim of an attack, it is entirely reasonable to conclude the policymakers
failed in their responsibility, and ought to be held accountable for their failure - including financially accountable.
Allowing people licensed by the state to carry weapons does not increase the school or businesses liability, as they are merely recognizing a license issued by the state.