In a case involving a U. of California at Los Angeles student who was stabbed in class, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public colleges must “protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities.”U. of California at Los Angeles
California’s highest court ruled on Thursday that public colleges must “protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities.”
While the decision in the case limits the university’s responsibility for safety to the classroom, it takes away a standard line of legal defense for colleges, said Scott D. Schneider, a lawyer who specializes in higher education with the firm Fisher Phillips. And it raises the possibility that future cases will test what other areas of the campus experience should fall under that realm of responsibility, he said, such as residence halls.
Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for less than $10/month.
Don’t have an account? Sign up now.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
If you need assistance, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com.
In a case involving a U. of California at Los Angeles student who was stabbed in class, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public colleges must “protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities.”U. of California at Los Angeles
California’s highest court ruled on Thursday that public colleges must “protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities.”
While the decision in the case limits the university’s responsibility for safety to the classroom, it takes away a standard line of legal defense for colleges, said Scott D. Schneider, a lawyer who specializes in higher education with the firm Fisher Phillips. And it raises the possibility that future cases will test what other areas of the campus experience should fall under that realm of responsibility, he said, such as residence halls.
The state Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling deals with the case of a student who was stabbed in the neck and chest by another student nearly nine years ago at the University of California at Los Angeles. The victim, Katherine Rosen, was attacked in a chemistry lab by Damon Thompson, who was known to college officials as having experienced delusions and threatened violence against other students, according to the court’s summary of the events.
Is a university partly liable when one student attacks another? It might be, a court says.
After the attack, Thompson was charged with attempted murder, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and later was admitted to a state hospital where he received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, the court said in its decision.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rosen sued the university and several staff members for negligence, saying the institution had a special relationship with her as a student and a duty to take reasonable actions to alert her of the danger or to guard her from it.
“She alleged UCLA breached this duty because, although aware of Thompson’s ‘dangerous propensities,’ it failed to warn or protect her or to control Thompson’s foreseeably violent conduct,” the court wrote.
A Question of Liability
The ruling is not the final step in the case, which will now return to a lower court to determine if the university took reasonable actions by monitoring Thompson, through a special consultation-and-response team, and requiring him to attend counseling, among other things.
Citing cases in Delaware, Florida, and Massachusetts, the California court affirmed that the university does have a special relationship with students in settings where it exercises some control over the environment or student behavior.
“The special relationship we now recognize is similarly limited. It extends to activities that are tied to the school’s curriculum but not to student behavior over which the university has no significant degree of control,” the justices wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT
Perhaps more than any other place on campus, colleges can be expected to retain a measure of control over the classroom environment.
“Education is at the core of a college’s mission, and the classroom is the quintessential setting for curricular activities,” they continued. “Perhaps more than any other place on campus, colleges can be expected to retain a measure of control over the classroom environment.”
But even with that limitation, the court’s decision is significant, Schneider said, because courts in most states would say that “a university cannot be liable for third-party criminal acts that injure someone on campus,” he said.
“If I’m a university in California, it’s going to take a powerful argument away from me,” he said. “After that, what’s left to be litigated is whether and how the university responded is reasonable.”
UCLA responded to the ruling with a written statement that said, in part, “We are disappointed in the California Supreme Court’s decision, and we are also concerned about the decision’s potential impact on higher education in California and beyond. Student safety remains a top priority for UCLA. The university is committed to providing an environment that is conducive to learning and that provides appropriate resources to support our students in need.”
Eric Kelderman writes about money and accountability in higher education, including such areas as state policy, accreditation, and legal affairs. You can find him on Twitter @etkeld, or email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com.
Eric Kelderman covers issues of power, politics, and purse strings in higher education. You can email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com, or find him on Twitter @etkeld.