Opinion ID: 1823301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Gross's Cross-Petition

Text: Gross cross-petitions for review claiming the Fourth District's emphasis on Nova's failure to warn implies Nova only had a duty to warn. We do not read the Fourth District's opinion so narrowly. The court stated, We need not go so far as to impose a general duty of supervision, as is common in the school-minor student context, to find that Nova had a duty, in this limited context, to use ordinary care in providing educational services and programs to one of its adult students. Gross, 716 So.2d at 339. We read this statement broadly as an indication that the duty, one of ordinary care under the circumstances, could include but is not necessarily limited to warning of the known dangers at this particular practicum site. We do not make any specific findings as to what duty Nova owed Gross, other than to hold a jury should determine whether Nova acted reasonably in light of all of the circumstances surrounding the case. See Hutt, 670 So.2d at 66-67. As the court said in Silvers v. Associated Technical Institute, Inc., No. 93-4253, 1994 WL 879600 at  (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 12, 1994), students... could reasonably expect that the school's placement office would make some effort to avoid placing [students] with an employer likely to harm them. This is the type of duty owed under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the Fourth District. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., recused.