Opinion ID: 1657443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Winter Storms Bulletin

Text: With regard to the Winter Storms Bulletin, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that, [i]t was not a blanket sanction of all sledding in any area, and under any circumstances. The information and warnings contained in the Winter Storms Bulletin that was distributed by Tech's Housing Department were consistent with the approach taken by the Police Department. The language therein specifically provided that the University encouraged sledding, but warned of sledding only in proper areas and using good judgment. By definition, this meant that students may sled, but that they should exercise care when doing so. In fact, the Winter Storms Bulletin even gave students some direction in this area, by providing: We discourage sledding down the hills along Tech Drive into the path of oncoming carsnot good judgementnor is being dragged behind a moving vehicle considered using good judgement. By its terms, this portion of the Winter Storms Bulletin was intended by the University to provide examples or illustrations of what was not considered to be good judgment. The plaintiffs claim that Pitre relied upon the Winter Storms Bulletin in his decision to sled, and that he construed it as University approval of sledding on any hill except along Tech Drive. Yet the record supports the trial court's finding that, the winter storms bulletin was not the impetus which began this particular activity. Pitre alone testified that the Winter Storms Bulletin prompted him to go sledding that night. [9] None of the other students stated that they relied upon the Winter Storms Bulletin. In any event, even if Tech had sanctioned sledding on the Assembly Center hill and Pitre relied upon it, the obligation to use good judgment remained with him. This included the responsibility of preventing injury by observing and avoiding obvious fixed obstacles, such as the light pole, and by not riding backwards, upside-down, on a non-steerable garbage can lid in the direction of the pole. The plaintiffs also claim that Tech assumed an affirmative duty to warn or prevent this accident by issuing the Winter Storms Bulletin and because its police officers undertook the responsibility of stopping sledding. As support, they rely upon Harris, supra, which involved a negligence action against Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., after one patron was injured and one was killed in an armed robbery. The Court found that the defendant assumed a duty to protect its customers from harm by hiring a security guard. In so finding, the Court placed emphasis on the fact that the restaurant had been robbed repeatedly and that the security guard negligently discharged his duties. This case is distinguishable from Harris because the risk here was obvious to all and Pitre was able to protect himself simply by exercising good judgment as he was sledding down the hill. If we were to adopt the plaintiffs' argument, Tech and many other institutions would be forced to shoulder an insurmountable burden. Consider the remainder of the Winter Storms Bulletin, which warns of well-known dangers associated with cold weather, such as frostbite, hypothermia, walking on icy sidewalks and driving on icy roads. Under the plaintiffs' theory, Tech assumed a duty to protect its students from all of these obvious and apparent risks. Yet we conclude that every college student should know of such dangers, and should take the simple measures necessary to protect himself.