The Anomalous Result: California Higher Education Student-on-student Violence

• Publication year: 2016
• Author: By Michaela Goldstein

The Anomalous Result: California Higher Education Student-on-Student Violence

By Michaela Goldstein^*

INTRODUCTION

On October 9, 2009, Katherine Rosen, a student at the University of California, Los Angeles, suffered severe injuries after being attacked by another student during a chemistry laboratory.¹ The California Appellate Court held that although the attack may have been foreseeable, colleges and universities are under no duty to protect their students from student violence that was foreseeable due to a threat being carried out.²

California universities and colleges are insulated by an inconsistent no-duty rule. Simply put, the California courts impose a duty, and therefore impose liability, if an attack on a student occurs due to a dangerous physical condition on the property,³ but not if a student threatens another student and carries out that threat.⁴ For example, if an assailant hides in a foreseeably dangerous staircase, behind a hedge, and attacks a student, the college is under a duty to have acted reasonably in preventing the attack.⁵ However, if a student informs university personnel of their intent to attack another student in chemistry laboratory, and then carries out the foreseeable attack, the university is under no duty to have acted reasonably in protecting the student.⁶ This anomalous distinction is unsupported by any reasonable explanation.

In California, a grammar or high school and its students are in a special relationship arising from the mandatory character of school attendance and the comprehensive control exercised by school personnel over their students.⁷ Because of this special relationship, school personnel have a duty to act reasonably to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of all third parties, including other students.⁸

The issue presented in Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County ("UC Regents"), whether colleges or universities are under a duty to protect their students from foreseeable third party violence, has yet to be decided by the California Supreme Court.⁹ In Crow v. State of California, the California Appellate Court held that universities do not owe a duty based on a special relationship between student and school.¹⁰ Instead, the court reasoned that institutions of higher education differ from grammar and high schools because of the non-compulsory attendance and the goal of allowing college students to regulate their own lives.¹¹ Later cases relied on Crow's reasoning, holding that institutions of higher education are not under a duty based on a special relationship to protect their students from student violence.¹²

In UC Regents, the California Appellate Court furthered Crow's reasoning to hold that even if the student-on-student attack is foreseeable, the university does not owe a duty to protect its students from criminal conduct by another student.¹³ The court explained that "[w]hile colleges and universities may properly adopt policies and provide student services that reduce the likelihood such incidents will occur on their campuses," they are not liable for attacks by other students regardless of whether "such conduct might be in some sense foreseeable."¹⁴

This comment proposes that the California Supreme Court should follow modern tort trends¹⁵ and remove the no-duty rule regarding student-on-student violence.¹⁶ California should recognize that a college or university has a duty to exercise reasonable care in protecting its students from foreseeable criminal attacks by other students under the special relationship doctrine.

As background, Part II of this comment reviews the facts of UC Regents. Part III will discuss the goals of tort law and how the current no-duty law undermines those goals. Additionally, Part III will undermine suggestions that imposing a duty will require unmanageable regulation of college students by analogizing to employer liability. Lastly, Part III will evaluate other states' successful imposition of this duty on universities and colleges. Part V concludes by recommending that the California Supreme Court should reverse the decision in UC Regents.¹⁷

[Page 16]

CASE HISTORY

Factual History

Katherine Rosen, a student at the University of California, Los Angeles ("UCLA"), suffered severe injuries after being attacked by another student, Damon Thompson, during a chemistry laboratory.¹⁸

Beginning in the fall of 2008, Thompson began submitting complaints that students were making sexual advances towards him, calling him names, and questioning his intelligence.¹⁹ Thompson warned the Dean of Students that if the university failed to discipline the alleged students, the matter would likely "escalate" and would cause Thompson to act in a manner that would "incur undesirable consequences."²⁰ After Thompson sent emails to multiple professors alleging that students were attempting to distract him by making offensive comments, Thompson was encouraged to seek medical help at UCLA's Counseling and Psychological Services ("CAPS"), an on campus center with trained psychologists who address the mental health needs of students.²¹

In February, Thompson informed his dormitory resident director that he heard clicking sounds he believed came from a gun. Thompson told the resident director that his father had advised him that he could hurt the other residents in response to these incidents. Thompson stated that he had thought about it, but decided not to do anything.²²

The resident director contacted campus police in response to the incident. Finding no gun, the officers recommended that Thompson undergo a medical evaluation. At the psychiatric evaluation, Thompson complained of auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and a history of depression. Thompson agreed to take antipsychotic drugs and attend outpatient treatment at CAPS.²³

Psychologist Nicole Green believed that Thompson was suffering from schizophrenia, but concluded that he did not exhibit suicidal or homicidal ideation and that he had not expressed any intent to harm others. Thompson did, however, inform another psychologist that he had previously experienced general ideations of harming others, clarifying that he had never formulated a plan to do so, nor identified a specific victim.²⁴

In June 2009, Thompson was involved in an altercation in his dormitory. According to campus police, Thompson had knocked on the door of a sleeping resident and accused him of making too much noise and then pushed him. When the sleeping resident informed Thompson that he had not been making noise, Thompson pushed him again stating, "this is your last warning." As a result of the incident, Thompson was expelled from university housing and ordered to return to CAPS when the fall semester began.²⁵

During the summer semester, Thompson sent letters to two chemistry professors alleging that students and university personnel had made negative comments about him. Although the letters named several individuals, Thompson reported that he intended to ignore the comments and refrain from reacting. When the fall semester began, Thompson made similar complaints to another chemistry professor.²⁶

On October 6th, a chemistry teaching assistant ("TA") reported another incident involving Thompson. According to the TA, Thompson alleged that a student called him stupid. Thompson described the student's physical appearance to the TA and insisted that he be provided with the name of the student. The TA told Thompson that he had been present in the laboratory when this incident allegedly occurred and had not heard anyone say anything derogatory about Thompson. The TA informed the professor that Thompson's behavior had become a weekly routine. The professor informed the Assistant Dean of Students who expressed concern that Thompson had identified a specific student in his class who he believed was against him.²⁷

On the morning of October 7th, a second chemistry TA emailed the same professor to report that a student from another section (later identified as Thompson) had accused students of verbal harassment. The TA had been present during the incident and did not hear or see any harassment.²⁸

Two days later, on the morning of October 9th, at approximately 12:00 p.m., Thompson was working in a chemistry laboratory when he attacked student Katherine Rosen with a kitchen knife. When campus police arrived, Thompson told them "they were out to get me" and complained that the other students had been "picking on him." Thompson also stated that he had been "provoked" by students in the lab who were insulting him, explaining that similar incidents had happened on "several occasions in the past."²⁹

[Page 17]

Rosen told investigating officers that she had been working in the chemistry laboratory for approximately three hours prior to the attack and did not remember having any interactions or conversations with Thompson. Rosen recalled kneeling down to place equipment in her chemistry locker when she suddenly felt...