No. A college is not legally responsible for a student's private life. The judge explained that a university is for learning, not a daycare or a prison. The court assumes that students old enough for college are mature enough to make their own life choices. There is no law that requires a university to act like a parent by controlling who students see or where they go.

No. I decided that colleges don't have to control their students' personal lives or who they hang out with because colleges are places for learning, not babysitting. There are no laws that say colleges have to do this. When students are old enough to go to college and follow the rules to be there, we assume they're old enough to make their own choices. The laws about keeping order on campus or not helping kids break the law don't apply here. So, the parents didn't have a good reason to sue, and the university's request to dismiss the case should be approved. We didn't need to decide if the university couldn't be sued anyway because of special protections.

<opinion type="majority">
<author id="b157-16">Bettman, J.</author>
This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The gravamen of plaintiff’s petition is that the defendants permitted the minor plaintiff, a seventeen-year-old-female student from Chicago, Illinois, enrolled at the University, to become associated with criminals, to be seduced, to become a drug user and further allowed her to be absent from her dormitory and failed to return her to her parents’ custody on demand.
In our opinion, plaintiffs completely misconstrue the <page-number citation-index="1" label="148">*148</page-number>duties and functions of a university. A university is an institution for the advancement of knowledge and learning. It is neither a nursery school, a boarding school nor a prison. No one is required to attend. Persons who meet the required qualifications and who abide by the university’s rules and regulations are permitted to attend and must be presumed to have sufficient maturity to conduct their own personal affairs.
We know of no requirement of the law and none has been cited to us placing on a university or its employees any duty to regulate the private lives of their students, to control their comings and goings and to supervise their associations.
We do not believe that R. C. 3345.21, requiring a university to maintain “law and order” on campus, nor R. C. 2151.41, making it a crime to contribute to the delinquency of a child, have any bearing on the fact situation before us.
For these reasons we hold that plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action and defendants ’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted.
Having so determined, it is not necessary to consider the defense that the university and its employees are immune from suit.
</opinion>

No. A university does not have a legal duty to supervise the private lives and associations of its students. The court reasoned that the function of a university is the advancement of knowledge, not to serve as a 'nursery school, a boarding school nor a prison.' It held that students who are qualified to attend a university are presumed to possess sufficient maturity to conduct their own personal affairs. The court found no legal requirement in common law or statute that would impose a duty upon a university to regulate students' private lives, control their movements, or supervise their associations.

No. I hold that the university does not have a legal duty to regulate the private lives of their students, control their comings and goings, or supervise their associations because a university is an institution for the advancement of knowledge and learning, not a nursery school, boarding school, or prison. The law does not impose such duties on universities or their employees. Students who meet the required qualifications and abide by the university's rules and regulations must be presumed to have sufficient maturity to conduct their own personal affairs. The relevant statutes, O.R.C. 3345.21 requiring universities to maintain 'law and order' on campus, and O.R.C. 2151.41 making it a crime to contribute to the delinquency of a child, do not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action, and the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted. Given this determination, it is unnecessary to consider the defense that the university and its employees are immune from suit.

Hegel v. Langsam

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot