Friday, March 23, 2018
Page 1
California Supreme Court:
Colleges Have Duty to Protect Students From Foreseeable Violence
Action Brought by Student Stabbed by Classmate Who Was Known By UCLA Administrators to Have Mental Problems Is Reinstated
From staff and wire service reports
|
|
|
—AP In this 2009 file photo, Damon Thompson arrives for an arraignment hearing in Los Angeles. The California Supreme Court held yesterday that public colleges in the state have a responsibility to protect students from foreseeable acts of violence by other students in the classroom. The court reinstated in a lawsuit against the University of California regents by a UCLA student, Katherine Rosen, who was stabbed by classmate Thompson in 2009 during a chemistry class. |
The California Supreme Court yesterday reinstated an action against the state university system by a UCLA student who was stabbed by a classmate known by school administrators to have severe mental problems.
“Considering the unique features of the collegiate environment, we hold that universities have a special relationship with their students and a duty to protect them from foreseeable violence during curricular activities,” Justice Carol Corrigan said in an opinion joined in by five other justices. Justice Ming Chin wrote a concurring opinion.
The opinion reverses a 2-1 decision by Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal granting a writ of mandate sought by the Regents of the University of California to countermand Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg’s denial of a defense motion summary judgment. Div. Seven Justice Laurie Zelon wrote:
“[A] public university has no general duty to protect its students from the criminal acts of other students.”
Protective Environment
Explaining the reversal, Corrigan said that college campuses are communities where many students, though they may no longer be minors, are living on their own for the first time. Colleges have mental health counselors, campus police and resident advisers, impose rules and can monitor and discipline students, she noted, declaring:
“The college-student relationship thus fits within the paradigm of a special relationship. Students are comparatively vulnerable and dependent on their colleges for a safe environment. Colleges have a superior ability to provide that safety with respect to activities they sponsor or facilities they control. Moreover, this relationship is bounded by the student’s enrollment status. Colleges do not have a special relationship with the world at large, but only with their enrolled students. The population is limited, as is the relationship’s duration.”
The jurist added:
“Of course, many aspects of a modern college student’s life are, quite properly, beyond the institution’s control. Colleges generally have little say in how students behave off campus, or in their social activities unrelated to school. It would be unrealistic for students to rely on their college for protection in these settings, and the college would often be unable to provide it. This is another appropriate boundary of the college-student relationship: Colleges are in a special relationship with their enrolled students only in the context of school-sponsored activities over which the college has some measure of control.”
Months of Reports
The decision came in an action against the regents and several UCLA employees by Katherine Rosen, who was stabbed by a classmate in 2009 during a chemistry class. Rosen said school officials failed to warn students that her attacker, Damon Thompson, then 20, was potentially violent despite months of reports about his paranoid and threatening behavior.
Thompson was under treatment at UCLA for symptoms that pointed to schizophrenia. He acknowledged the attack, was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was sent to a mental hospital.
UCLA said in a statement that it sympathized with Rosen and her family, but was concerned about the decision’s “potential impact on higher education in California and beyond,” elaborating:
“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.”
Other Contentions
Corrigan rejected arguments by the regents that making colleges responsible for protecting students would be expensive and impractical and would discourage schools from offering mental health and crisis management services. The regents also raised concerns that students would refrain from speaking openly to mental health counselors.
The case was remanded to the Superior Court for a determination as to whether UCLA did breach its duty to Rosen. Corrigan remarked:
“In regard to breach, we note that the appropriate standard of care for judging the reasonableness of the university’s actions remains an open question, which the parties are free to litigate on remand. UCLA’s argument that there was little more it reasonably could have done to prevent the assault may be relevant to this determination.”
Concurring Opinion
Chin agreed with the majority’s decision to reinstate Rosen’s lawsuit, but said:
“I do not join the majority opinion insofar as it would extend this duty beyond the classroom, to encompass more broadly ‘curricular activities’…and activities closely related to [the] delivery of educational services.’ ”
He said the opinion was likely to create confusions because there was no guidance on which other activities qualify.
The case is Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court, 2018 S.O.S. 1348.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company