Duty of care to protect student in UCLA stabbing exists, state Supreme Court rules

Plaintiffs' attorneys say universities will be held to a higher standard after the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that UCLA had a duty of care to protect a female student who was stabbed in a classroom by a mentally ill student who had previously been removed from the campus and counseled.

The unanimous court ruled such a duty arose because a foreseeable threat of violence existed and noted that universities have for some time enacted protocols to respond to potential threats.

Napa sole practitioner A. Charles Dell'Ario, the appellate specialist who prevailed in his high court argument on behalf of the victim, Katharine Rosen, said the dispute was not over the school's policy but its implementation. "It's not any more burdensome that it already" has been, he said.

"We've had a duty from K through 12 for a long time. What this does is extend that to the public colleges. It's going to be a case-by-case issue depending on how the facts play out," said Dell'Ario.

The high court ruling, authored by Justice Carol Corrigan, is the first time in 12 years that the state's highest court has addressed the question of whether a special relationship exists between schools and students. The court made an analogy between university-student and parent-child relationships. The Regents of the University of California v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 DJDAR 2629.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge had found that a duty existed, denying UCLA's motion for summary judgment, but the opinion was overturned by the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

The original lawsuit, filed by Brian Panish of Panish, Shea & Boyle, argued that UCLA had separate duties to protect students and control foreseeable wrongful acts, while the university said it had no such duty.

In declining to look at whether the school had a duty to control the attacker's behavior, the high court focused instead on the university's duty to protect students from foreseeable violence.

"Although college students may no longer be minors under the law, they may still be learning how to navigate the world as adults. They are dependent on their college communities to provide structure, guidance and a safe learning environment," Corrigan wrote.

The state high court said the duty extends to "activities that are tied to the school's curriculum but not to student behavior over which the university has no significant degree of control."

However, it ruled future cases will have to be examined on the facts, as colleges are not the ultimate insurers of student safety.

"We simply hold that they have a duty to act with reasonable care when aware of a foreseeable threat of violence in a curricular setting," the court ruled.

Justice Ming Chin, in a concurring opinion, took issue with the court extending the duty beyond the classroom and not defining what constitutes a non-classroom curricular activity. He wrote it may be a school's duty to warn or protect in a non-classroom activity.

"But I would leave that question for a case that presents the issue on concrete facts, rather than broadly conclude, in a case involving classroom activity, that a university's control in non-classroom settings is sufficient to impose a duty to protect or to warn," Chin added.

Brian Kabateck, a plaintiffs' lawyer who is not involved with the case, said he wasn't clear on whether Chin meant an actual classroom or a metaphysical one.

"Why simply restrict it to just four corners of a classroom? Even under Chin's analysis, or a biology class in the woods, he uses specifically the words 'in the classroom,'" said Kabateck.

Other attorneys said that although the ruling creates a higher standard for universities to follow, it's a welcome one that will still be judged on a case-by-case basis.

"I think it is a higher burden for the university that is appropriate for students in 2018," said Kabateck. "I think future cases will turn based on the facts."

In a statement, Panish said, "Today's decision by the California Supreme Court not only begins to bring justice to Katharine Rosen but forces universities and colleges to take responsibility for the safety and well-being of their students."

Appellate attorney Timothy T. Coates of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, who represented the university, did not return a request for comment. He previously argued that a liability ruling would "restigmatize the mentally ill population."

Attorney Paul Kiesel, not involved with the case, said the ruling is a timely one in the face of increased school shootings.

"This is really just in my view following the mainstream issue of foreseeability and duty. It's a really good case to extend where a special relationship should go," Kiesel said.

The case is not yet over, as the Supreme Court remanded questions of breach of duty of care and immunity back to the appellate court.

"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," the court ruled.