Gott v. Berea College
1913 Ky. LEXIS 441, 156 Ky. 376, 161 S.W. 204 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private college, acting in its quasi-parental capacity (in loco parentis), has the authority to establish and enforce reasonable rules governing student conduct, even if those rules incidentally cause financial harm to a third-party business.
Facts:
- J. S. Gott purchased and began operating a restaurant across the street from Berea College around September 1, 1911.
- Gott's restaurant was located and conducted mainly for the profits arising from student patronage.
- Berea College is a private, incorporated institution supported by private donations and student fees.
- During the summer vacation of 1911, the college faculty amended its student manual to include a new rule.
- On September 11, 1911, the college announced the new rule, which forbade students from entering any eating houses in Berea not controlled by the college, under penalty of immediate dismissal.
- The college enforced the rule, expelling two or three students for its violation.
- As a result of the rule and its enforcement, students were afraid to patronize Gott's restaurant, which severely injured, if not ruined, his business.
Procedural Posture:
- J. S. Gott initiated an action in equity against Berea College in the trial court, seeking an injunction and $500 in damages.
- The trial court granted a temporary restraining order.
- Gott filed amended petitions alleging slander and increasing his prayer for damages to $2,000.
- The trial court dissolved the restraining order but allowed the case to proceed on the slander allegations.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Berea College and dismissed Gott's petition.
- Gott, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private college have the lawful authority to enforce a rule that forbids its students from patronizing a specific local eating establishment, even when the enforcement of that rule causes significant financial harm to the business owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Nunn
Yes. A private college has the lawful authority to enforce a rule forbidding its students from patronizing a local eating establishment. College authorities stand in loco parentis regarding the physical and moral welfare of their students and possess broad discretion to enact rules for their governance, much like a parent would for a child. So long as these rules are not unlawful or against public policy, courts will not interfere. The rule was reasonable as a means to ensure student cooperation with the college's low-cost board program and as a safeguard against disease from potentially unsanitary public eateries. Because the college owed no legal duty to Gott and did not act with malice, it is not liable for the incidental financial injury his business suffered as a consequence of a lawful and properly enacted rule intended to govern only the student body.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal doctrine of in loco parentis for private educational institutions, granting them expansive authority to regulate student conduct, including off-campus activities. It establishes that third parties who suffer incidental economic harm from the enforcement of such rules generally have no legal recourse unless they can prove the school acted with malice, unlawfully, or breached a direct legal duty owed to them. This precedent reinforces the autonomy of private colleges in governing their student bodies, prioritizing institutional discipline and welfare over the commercial interests of surrounding businesses.
