Why All Colleges Should Pay Attention to a Ruling on Their Duty to Protect Students

The California Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman who was stabbed by a classmate in a lab can sue the University of California at Los Angeles, where the stabbing took place. The judges wrote in their decision that “universities have a special relationship with their students and a duty to protect them from foreseeable violence during curricular activities.”

The victim, Katherine Rosen, survived the stabbing. She alleged that the university did not do enough to protect her from the attacker, Damon Thompson. Thompson had already been expelled from university housing and had reported hearing voices and having paranoid thoughts, according to the ruling. (He was found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity.)

Benjamin C. Zipursky, a law professor at Fordham University, has been following the case, and he thinks its implications could be significant. He spoke to The Chronicle about what it means for California’s universities and, possibly, for universities in other states. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Q. Will we see UCLA changing anything immediately as a result of this ruling?

A. I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see them do anything different in light of this ruling right now. A big institution like this is already going to worry about bad results, like a student getting stabbed. Whether there’s going to be legal liability or not, this is something they want to avoid.

In terms of really enhancing their fear of liability, it’s hard to say. The thing that’s more likely to produce a big reaction from administrators would be a finding by a jury that they really were negligent. We don’t have that here.

Q. So could there be a future finding by a jury?

A. The defense lawyers will probably make another motion to say that this case shouldn’t go to trial. If that’s not successful the big question will be: Are they really willing to risk going in front of a jury or are they going to settle the case? Most defendants settle.

Q. This ruling applies to “curricular activities.” Does that mean it doesn’t apply to fraternities, dorm rooms, sports locker rooms, and other places outside the classroom?

A. The court says there’s a “duty of care” with curricularly-related activities. Then they say, by taking this position, We are not necessarily saying that in all contexts we would recognize a duty of care. And we’re not saying that we wouldn’t. They’re hedging on that issue.

There’s no real clue as to what curricularly-related activity means. In this case it was not literally a classroom where a professor was giving a lecture, but it was close. It was a required chemistry laboratory that the students were participating in.

Q. Should universities in other states be paying attention to this ruling out of California?

A. Tort law is a state-by-state issue. So this matters for all courts who are applying California law.

However, the state courts in the United States have never worn blinders. It turns out that for most of the last half of the 20th century, the California Supreme Court’s thinking and rulings in negligence law — which is what this case is — have been the most widely cited and considered the most influential.

Q. These were pretty specific circumstances. If you’re a general counsel, are you also worrying about other situations? For example, what if a number of students have reported sexual harassment by someone on campus?

A. I’ll take that as two questions. One part is, does it change what the law is telling UCLA to do? Another question is, can UCLA expect to be sued more frequently or for a wider variety of incidents? My basic answer is: I don’t think it changes what they understand that the law expects them to do. And I don’t think it changes what their responsibilities are. What the judges are trying to do is to be realistic about what everybody already understands the universities’ responsibilities to be.

On the question of whether there are going to be more lawsuits, it’s hard to say. On the margin, when plaintiffs’ lawyers think about suing universities, they have to think about how strong their factual case is and how strong their legal case is. Clearly this case, at least in California, strengthened their legal foundation.

I think it is likely to become a landmark in this area of law. It does firm up the foundations, at least in California and possibly beyond, of lawsuits against universities and colleges for people who are injured by violent third parties.

Q. What else do you find interesting about this case?

A. A very interesting and delicate question is this: If universities face liability in a case like this, where one of their students who’s been seen by mental-health services turns out to commit this kind of attack, does that mean they will be less prone to accept students with psychiatric ailments? Is it going to create a backlash against people with disabilities? The lawyer for UCLA suggested in oral argument in relatively soft ways some of those concerns. At least some of the justices recognized that they should move gently in this area.

Nell Gluckman writes about faculty issues and other topics in higher education. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.