Drinking in colleges has risen over the years, causing many parents, college directors and students to question how to curb this behavior. Whether a college is liable for any injuries that result due to alcohol consumption depends on the applicable court’s assessment of traditional and modern considerations.
 |
| illustration (source: http://collegestats.org/) |
Negligence Theory
If a student is injured in an alcohol-related accident, the usual legal theory is that of negligence. To secure an award, the student must show that the defendant had a duty to protect his or her safety, breached that duty and this breach was the proximate cause of the injuries he or she suffered. The first element is usually at the heart of this consideration.
Traditional Approach
Courts were hesitant to impose any legal duties on colleges prior to the 1960s. It provided colleges and universities with immunities or let them avoid any liability with affirmative defenses. In many cases, colleges were given an in loco parentis role in which they were only to broadly protect the students.
Another rule during this era was that any willful or criminal act by a third party was so unforeseeable that it served as a supervening cause that cut off the defendant’s liability. Therefore, even if the college would have been found to have a duty to protect the student, a third party’s criminal conduct would have barred legal redress on the part of the college.
A further bar to such claims during this era were state laws that would prevent legal claims from plaintiffs who were contributorily negligent or who had assumed the risk of injury, commonly found if the plaintiff had engaged in alcohol consumption himself.
Evolution of Caselaw
During the 1970s and 1980s, some of the rules discussed above were replaced with new ideas. Courts found that defendants were required to guard against foreseeable misconduct of third parties including criminal acts.
However, the law during this time treated colleges much as social hosts. Courts usually only found liability when the defendant facilitated alcohol consumption, rather than merely serve as a bystander. Courts were still reluctant to impose a duty on colleges.
For example, in Beach v. University of Utah, the Supreme Court of Utah stated that the university had no duty to protect a plaintiff who became intoxicated while on a school-sponsored trip and subsequently fell down a cliff. The trip was chaperoned by a faculty member and who had previously witnessed the plaintiff disoriented after drinking on a previous occasion. The court reasoned that the student was an adult responsible for her own behavior. The court held that imposing a duty to carefully supervise student activities would be unrealistic because the university would have to fulfill the role of having a custodial relationship with the students.
During this era, the courts also refused to find colleges liable when students drank on campus and then engaged in drag racing, after students were injured after leaving a school sponsored drinking party located off campus or after a female student was injured in her dorm room after drinking by a fraternity-encouraged ritual.
Modern Approach
Some states still follow the traditional and bystander rules discussed above. However, certain states have found and imposed liability under certain situations. For example, if the college was aware of a physical condition on the campus that is potentially dangerous and did not make repairs, it has been held liable. Therefore, a student who drinks and then falls out the dorm window may be able to recover under this fact pattern. Colleges may also be held liable if they are aware of a specific dangerous activity and the foreseeable danger and fail to take reasonable steps to protect against this danger.
Another instance when colleges have been found liable for student injuries related to alcohol is when students have a prevailing dangerous practice that college officials know about but that they refuse to take proper steps to limit such practices. This is sometimes the case in hazing incidents.
Drinking Policies
In addition to laws and caselaw on the subject, students may also be impacted by a drinking policy adopted by the college. For example, students may be given written warnings, loss of privileges or expelled due to their noncompliance with underage drinking rules.
If a student is injured in an alcohol-related accident, the usual legal theory is that of negligence. To secure an award, the student must show that the defendant had a duty to protect his or her safety, breached that duty and this breach was the proximate cause of the injuries he or she suffered. The first element is usually at the heart of this consideration.
Traditional Approach
Courts were hesitant to impose any legal duties on colleges prior to the 1960s. It provided colleges and universities with immunities or let them avoid any liability with affirmative defenses. In many cases, colleges were given an in loco parentis role in which they were only to broadly protect the students.
Another rule during this era was that any willful or criminal act by a third party was so unforeseeable that it served as a supervening cause that cut off the defendant’s liability. Therefore, even if the college would have been found to have a duty to protect the student, a third party’s criminal conduct would have barred legal redress on the part of the college.
A further bar to such claims during this era were state laws that would prevent legal claims from plaintiffs who were contributorily negligent or who had assumed the risk of injury, commonly found if the plaintiff had engaged in alcohol consumption himself.
Evolution of Caselaw
During the 1970s and 1980s, some of the rules discussed above were replaced with new ideas. Courts found that defendants were required to guard against foreseeable misconduct of third parties including criminal acts.
However, the law during this time treated colleges much as social hosts. Courts usually only found liability when the defendant facilitated alcohol consumption, rather than merely serve as a bystander. Courts were still reluctant to impose a duty on colleges.
For example, in Beach v. University of Utah, the Supreme Court of Utah stated that the university had no duty to protect a plaintiff who became intoxicated while on a school-sponsored trip and subsequently fell down a cliff. The trip was chaperoned by a faculty member and who had previously witnessed the plaintiff disoriented after drinking on a previous occasion. The court reasoned that the student was an adult responsible for her own behavior. The court held that imposing a duty to carefully supervise student activities would be unrealistic because the university would have to fulfill the role of having a custodial relationship with the students.
During this era, the courts also refused to find colleges liable when students drank on campus and then engaged in drag racing, after students were injured after leaving a school sponsored drinking party located off campus or after a female student was injured in her dorm room after drinking by a fraternity-encouraged ritual.
Modern Approach
Some states still follow the traditional and bystander rules discussed above. However, certain states have found and imposed liability under certain situations. For example, if the college was aware of a physical condition on the campus that is potentially dangerous and did not make repairs, it has been held liable. Therefore, a student who drinks and then falls out the dorm window may be able to recover under this fact pattern. Colleges may also be held liable if they are aware of a specific dangerous activity and the foreseeable danger and fail to take reasonable steps to protect against this danger.
Another instance when colleges have been found liable for student injuries related to alcohol is when students have a prevailing dangerous practice that college officials know about but that they refuse to take proper steps to limit such practices. This is sometimes the case in hazing incidents.
Drinking Policies
In addition to laws and caselaw on the subject, students may also be impacted by a drinking policy adopted by the college. For example, students may be given written warnings, loss of privileges or expelled due to their noncompliance with underage drinking rules.
Copyright HG.org