Analysis of Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v Gross - Case Study Example

PAPER Nova Southeastern Inc. v Gross 758 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2000) Answer to Question The relationship created a duty upon the University to perform supervisory duty upon the student. What made this relationship special is the mandatory practicum arranged by the University for its students. This special relationship imposed upon the University a special duty to use a reasonable care in assigning the students in the internship sites. What is reasonable is not only limited to warning the student about the known dangers at the practicum site but also the performance of some other acts that will help protect the students from the foreseeable dangers of the internship activity. The special duty, also known as Hohfeldian correlative duty as mentioned in this case, is supported by the fundamental principles of tort law, to sum: "that any man who voluntarily undertakes to act has an implied obligation to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of other may not be injured". (citation omitted but mentioned in this case) Answer to Question 2: The duty to use reasonable care in assigning the student to internship was not changed by the fact that the student arranged her own internship or practicum because this did not change the special relationship of student-institution imposed by the mandatory internship program of the school. In the other hand, even if it is the student who arranged her own practicum, she still needs the approval of the school on the selected site. Part of the duty of the school before approval is to determine the condition of the site whether it a conducive place and to warn the student of any foreseeable risks. Answer to Question 3: Aside from waivers to be signed by the parent/s of the student, another way that the institution could protect itself from liability is to have the employer, student, or school sign indemnity agreements or releases of liability which is appropriate in the case of mandatory internship program. As an alternative to an indemnity agreement, the employer and the school enter into a "memo of understanding" that defines the responsibilities of each party - the school, employer, and student - as they relate to the internship. (Rochelle Kaplan. "Legal Issues Surrounding Internships". ) PAPER 2 Bradshaw v. Rawlings 612 F. 2d 135 (3d Cir. 1979) Answer to Question 1: It is a settled rule beginning from this case that college students, mostly 18 and above, are already adults, and the supervisory duty of an institution imposed by the doctrine in loco parentis no longer applies as the doctrine only applies to minors. Therefore, regulating the conduct of students and school-sponsored student activities outside the institution is no longer the responsibility of the school. Once the school, in its own initiative, took the responsibility in regulating those activities, it created a "special relationship" imposing to itself a responsibility to protect the students from the foreseeable risks of the activity. As a result, the failure to provide a reasonable care for the students in the conduct of school-sponsored activity will make the school liable for injuries that may be sustained by the students, if any, even if it is an off-campus activity. In this connection, the school could have better protected itself form the potential liability in situations involving student activity and the consumption of alcohol by limiting the coverage of the school policy prohibiting alcohol consumption during school or student activities within the school premises only. It is therefore suggested, that a change in the school's written policy of regulating alcohol consumption by the students to be limited only on in-campus activities or in activities sponsored by the school. In cases of off-campus activities where an adviser is involved, it should be clarified before the activity as to what level of interaction should the adviser exercise. The type and level of interaction with students in an advisory capacity may have an impact on determining negligent liability for the institutions since advisers are representatives of the school. ("Roles and Responsibilities of Advisors". University of California Students Organization. ) Answer to Question 2: The decision in the case of Bradshaw v Rawlings served as the pattern of the Courts's decision in the case of Whitlock v University of Denver. The court ruled in this case that a University can only be held liable to the injuries sustained by a fraternity member if the University handbook 'reflects an effort by the University to control the risk-taking decisions of its students in their private recreation' or anything in the lease that would provide a basis for establishing a relationship between the student and the institution" (NASPA Journal, Vol. 42, no. 4, p.468 Read More