Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/regents-university-california-v-superior-court-34573
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:19:50+00:00

Document:
university1 owes a duty of care to protect students like Rosen from harm.
schools that provide postsecondary education to enrolled students.
consequences.” A week later, the school moved Thompson to a new dormitory.
referred to the university’s Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS).
with Thompson and encouraged him to seek medical help at CAPS.
anyone. Campus police arrived and searched the premises but found no weapon.
explore possibilities for transitioning him into different housing.
harassed by other students. He was now amenable to psychiatric evaluation.
at him through the floor.
next to” Thompson in the lab, as one of the students calling him stupid.
similar difficulties in other classes.
stabbed fellow student Katherine Rosen in the chest and neck with a kitchen knife.
admitted to Patton State Hospital and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
breach of duty, and the immunity statutes did not apply.
of law.” (Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 464 (Parsons).
doubts about the evidence resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.
(Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037.
discharged if adequate warnings are conveyed to the students at risk. (Cf.
(Tarasoff) [discussing therapist’s duty to protect discharged through warnings].
(1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23; see Cabral, at p. 771.
potential victim that gives the victim a right to expect protection. (See Zelig v.
Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, § 40, subd. (b)(1)-(2).
duty to control Thompson’s behavior to prevent the harm.
Emotional Harm, § 40, coms. e & h, pp. 41-42.
p. 57.) We have not previously addressed the question.
§ 314A, com. b, p. 119.
one party is dependent, the other has superior control over the means of protection.
carriers and their passengers present another quintessential example. In Lopez v.
§ 40, com. h, p. 43.
many special relationships especially benefit the party charged with a duty of care.
(Rest.3d Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, § 40, com. h, p. 43.
from their customers and guests.
students, who were viewed as being under their custody and institutional control.
(1999) 64 Mo. L.Rev. 1, 5 (hereafter Lake).
reduced the authority of college administrators to control student behavior.
drinking. (Id. at pp. 285-287, 290-291.
student actions and drinking.” (Lake, supra, 64 Mo. L.Rev. at p. 16.
charge” of students on campus, and the attack in the Leger case was foreseeable.
modern view that adult students are generally responsible for their own welfare.
(conc. opn. of Kline, P. J.).
students of known dangers posed by criminals on the campus.” (Id. at p. 804.
increased the risk of criminal activity. (Id. at p. 812.
the student participants in the competitions it sponsors” (id. at p. 163).
This court has not addressed the college-student relationship since Avila.
intentionally.” (Id. at p. 870.
curriculum or closely related to its delivery of educational services.
many students, college is the first time they have lived away from home.
increase the risk of crime.” (Peterson, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 813.
often employ resident advisers, mental health counselors, and campus police.
Higher Education and the Case for Institutional Liability (2009) 35 J.C. & U.L.
503, 611 (hereafter de Haven).
students. The population is limited, as is the relationship’s duration.
38 Cal.4th at p. 163 [“school-supervised” athletic events]; Patterson v.
Protecting the Millennial College Student (2007) 16 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just.
addition, colleges are the party best situated to implement safety measures. (Ibid.
students. (Nova Southeastern University v. Gross (Fla. 2000) 758 So.2d 86, 89.
be expected to retain a measure of control over the classroom environment.
who hope to obtain a degree must attend classes and required laboratory sessions.
from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities.
Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312, 344 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.).
be “evaluated at a relatively broad level of factual generality.” (Cabral, at p. 772.
a “dangerous condition” for which a public entity may be liable under section 835.
supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 158.
analysis is categorical, not case-specific. (See Kesner, at p. 1144.
categorically barring an injured student’s claims against the university.
Parsons, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 476.
were foreseeable targets of his ire, could result in harm to one of those students.
uncommon, are happening more frequently. (See de Haven, supra, 35 J.C. & U.L.
shooting people, killing five professors and 24 students. (See id. at pp. 554-566.
He left over a dozen more wounded before taking his own life. (Id. at p. 566.
address for at least the past decade.
case. They do not, however, inform our threshold determination that a duty exists.
when the plaintiff’s claim involves intangible harm, such as emotional distress.
for physical injuries that are capable of identification. (See ibid.
Cal.4th at p. 502; see Parsons, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 476.
balance slightly in favor of duty.
schools reluctant to admit certain students, or to offer mental health treatment.
policy of preventing future harm.
Public Peril Begins” 25 Years After Tarasoff, 21 J. Legal Med. 187, 221).
unlikely to appreciably change this landscape.
to make university professors and administrators the “insurers” of student safety.
foreseeable threats would pose an unmanageable burden.
actions in response to a potential threat is a question of breach.
ability to obtain coverage for the negligence liability under consideration.
should be cautioned to avoid judging liability based on hindsight.
based on an implied-in-fact contract or the negligent undertaking doctrine.
section 820.2, which immunizes public employees’ discretionary acts.
section 43.92, we decline her invitation to revisit the ruling now.
CONCURRING OPINION BY CHIN, J.
delivery of educational services” (id. at p. 17).
“[t]he negligence alleged here is the failure to prevent a classroom assault.” (Maj.
our consideration of the issue to what is necessary to decide this case.
control in the particular setting over the environment and third party behavior.
nonclassroom settings is sufficient to impose a duty to protect or to warn.
related to [the] delivery of educational services” (id. at p. 17).
J. Petrulakis, Normal J. Hamill, L. Amy Blum and Kevin S. Reed for Petitioners.
Dental Association and California Hospital Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Southern California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
behalf of Real Party in Interest.
SCOCAL, The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court , S230568 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/regents-university-california-v-superior-court-34573) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 40
 § 40

§ 314
 v.

 § 40
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.