NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (Court TV) — The former assistant principal found to be negligent after a teacher was shot by a six-year-old student is now asking a judge to toss the jury’s verdict in the case.
Plaintiff Abigail Zwerner (L) and defendant Ebony Parker (R) appear in court during their civil trial on Oct. 29, 2025. (Court TV)
Abigail Zwerner suffered significant injuries in the shooting and sued former assistant principal Ebony Parker for $40 million dollars, arguing that Parker failed to act to protect her. A jury agreed with Zwerner but awarded her $10 million, a lesser amount.
MORE | Abby Zwerner v. Ebony Parker: 1st Grader Shoots Teacher Civil Trial
The $10 million award was stayed pending a postjudgment hearing; ahead of that hearing, Parker has filed several motions arguing for dismissal of the case, the award to be stricken, or, alternatively, a new trial.
Workers Compensation Act
Parker’s attorneys argue that Virginia’s Workers’ Compensation Act should have governed how Zwerner was treated after the shooting and should have exempted Parker from the lawsuit.
Parker’s attorneys argued that all evidence Zwerner presented that placed blame on the school administration shows that the shooting was a result of her employment and the risks posed by being a teacher. “A student shooting a teacher is much like an at-risk youth strangling a counselor or a prisoner killing a prison guard,” the motion states. “The positions of the parties and the complete absence of any outside relationship between them reflect that it was Zwerner’s job and doing her job that created the risk of assault.”
No Duty To Protect Existed; Zwerner Was Negligent
Should the judge not find the case should be dismissed under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Parker’s attorneys urged the judge to set aside the jury’s verdict and enter a judgment in Parker’s favor.
Parker’s attorneys argue in the motion that the former assistant principal never assumed a duty to protect Zwerner from the acts of the student, identified only as J.T.
The motion argues that, even if a duty existed, Parker did not act with gross negligence because she exercised “some degree of care,” allowing the child’s bag to be searched and calling his mother to come to the school. The motion also turns the case around and suggests that Zwerner herself was “contributorily negligent.” A second teacher had told Zwerner about the gun before leaving the classroom and asking Zwerner to keep an eye on J.T. “At this time, Zwerner could have and probably should have separated J.T. from his backpack. She did not.”
Unfairly Prejudiced
The final motion, arguing for a new trial, says that Parker was unfairly prejudiced by the decision to proceed with the civil case before her criminal case. Parker continues to face criminal charges for her alleged inaction on the day of the shooting; her trial is scheduled to begin in May.
Because of the pending criminal case, Parker did not testify at the civil trial. “Here, the prejudice to Dr. Parker from her silence was extreme, as proven by the testimony of other school employees and Zwerner’s counsel’s closing argument.” In their closing, Zwerner’s attorney highlighted Parker’s decision to plead the fifth and not testify in the case.
The judge is scheduled to hear arguments on the motions on Jan. 30.
