in Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2010), a federal appellate court ruled that staff of Paul Smith's College (a private college) did not have a duty to protect a student or his guest from injuries sustained in a snowmobile accident. The college was located on a lake, which the college did not own. Students had a practice of building bonfires on the frozen lake and using it as a location for consuming alcohol. A student and his guest went for a snowmobile ride around the lake; the student's blood-alcohol content at the time was over 0.11 percent. The snowmobile crashed and the two were killed. The guest was 20 years old and not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
The guest's father sued Paul Smith's College and its director of residence life for negligence, stating that college administrators knew that students were consuming alcohol and partying on the frozen lake and neither attempted to stop the partying nor enforced the college's alcohol policy. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that neither the college nor the director of residence life owed the decedents a duty of care because they were not on property controlled by the college. Even if the college had the ability to control the off-campus activities of its students and their guests, said the court, it had no obligation to do so.
If an institution sponsors an activity such as intercollegiate sports, however, a court may find that a “special relationship” exists beyond that owed to invitees or to the general public. For example, in Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993), a federal appellate court applying Pennsylvania law held that a special relationship existed between a college and a student who collapsed as a result of cardiac arrest and died during lacrosse practice, and that because of this special relationship the college had a duty to provide treatment to the student in the event of such a medical emergency.
In determining whether a duty exists, a court will consider whether the harm that befell the individual was foreseeable. In Kleinknecht, the court noted that the specific event need not be foreseeable, but the risk of harm must be both foreseeable and unreasonable. In analyzing the standard of care required, the court noted that the potential for life-threatening injuries occurring during practice or an athletic event was clearly foreseeable and thus the college's failure to provide facilities for emergency medical attention was unreasonable.
Even when an institution attempts to prohibit or to control inherently dangerous activities in which its students participate, a court may find that it has a duty to those students. In Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991), the Supreme Court of Delaware ruled that the university's pervasive regulation of hazing during fraternity rush created a duty to protect students from injuries suffered as a result of that hazing. Furek, who had pledged the local chapter of Sigma Phi Epsilon, was seriously burned and permanently scarred when a fraternity member poured a lye-based liquid oven cleaner over his back and neck as part of a hazing ritual. After he withdrew from the university and lost his football scholarship, he sued the university and was awarded $30,000 by a jury, 93 percent of which was to be paid by the university and the remainder by the student who poured the liquid on Furek.1
The university asserted on appeal that it had no duty to Furek. While agreeing that “the university's duty is a limited one,” the court was “not persuaded that none exists” (594 A.2d at 517). Rejecting the rationales of Bradshaw and its progeny, the court used a public policy argument to find that the university did have a duty:
It seems…reasonable to conclude that university supervision of potentially dangerous student activities is not fundamentally at odds with the nature of the parties' relationship, particularly if such supervision advances the health and safety of at least some students [594 A.2d at 518].
Although it refused to find a special duty based on the dangerous activities of fraternities and their members, the court held that:
Certain established principles of tort law provide a sufficient basis for the imposition of a duty on the [u]niversity to use reasonable care to protect resident students against the dangerous acts of third parties… [W]here there is direct university involvement in, and knowledge of, certain dangerous practices of its students, the university cannot abandon its residual duty of control [594 A.2d at 519–20].
The court determined that the university's own policy against hazing, and its repeated warnings to students against the hazards of hazing, “constituted an assumed duty” (594 A.2d at 520). Relying on Section 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court determined that the “pervasive” regulation of hazing by the university amounted to an undertaking by the university to protect students from the dangers related to hazing and created a duty to do so.
Because the outcomes in cases involving injuries related to cocurricular or social events are particularly fact sensitive, it is difficult to formulate concrete suggestions for avoiding or limiting legal liability. The cases seem to turn on whether the court believes that the injury was foreseeable. For example, in Knoll v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, the court refused to award summary judgment to a university when a student attempted to hold the university responsible for the injuries he sustained during hazing in a fraternity house, which, under university policy, was considered student housing controlled by the university. The court ruled that the kidnapping and hazing of a student by a fraternity known to have engaged in prior acts of hazing could have been foreseen by the university. A Louisiana court reacted similarly in Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, 738 So.2d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
On the other hand, a federal district court refused to find institutional liability for the death of a first-year student who fell from a cliff during a social event sponsored by a student organization. In Apfel v. Huddleston, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Utah 1999), the court reaffirmed the teachings of Beach and dismissed the complaint, stating that institutions generally will not be held liable for injuries that occur off campus and that are not part of the academic program. Particularly when the injury is alleged to have resulted, at least in part, from the intoxication of the injured student or other individual, the court will examine closely the degree to which the college supervised the social or cocurricular event (or had undertaken the responsibility to do so), the reasonableness of the injured individual's behavior, and the relationship between acts or omissions of the college and the subsequent injury. This is particularly true of litigation involving injuries that are a result of hazing related to fraternity or other social organizations.
A case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit illustrates the continuing influence of Bradshaw and Beach and some courts' continuing reluctance to find a special relationship that would create a duty on the college's part to protect students from their own risky behavior. In Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2003), a female student was sexually assaulted after consuming alcohol at a private party in a college dorm room. She sought to hold the college and the resident advisor liable for negligence because the resident advisor, who had been told that she was intoxicated and unconscious, did nothing to assist her. The court refused to find that a college has a “custodial duty” to protect an adult college student, and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment ruling for the college and the resident advisor.
Additional sources of liability may arise in states where case or statutory law establishes civil liability for private hosts who furnish intoxicating beverages (see Kelly v. Gwinnell, 476 A.2d 1219 (N.J. 1984), and Bauer v. Dann, 428 N.W.2d 658 (Iowa 1988)) or for retail establishments that sell alcohol to minors. Sponsors of parties at which intoxicants are served, particularly to minors, could be found negligent under the social host doctrine. A court in such a jurisdiction could rely on this law to impose a legal duty on the institution when alcohol is served at college-sponsored activities. Many states also have Dram Shop Acts, which strictly regulate licensed establishments engaged in the sale of intoxicants and impose civil liability for dispensing intoxicants to an intoxicated patron. A college or university that holds a liquor license, or contracts with a concessionaire who holds one, may wish
