Knoll v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska
258 Neb. 1, 1999 Neb. LEXIS 187, 601 N.W. 2d 757 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university, acting as a landowner, owes a duty to its student invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable acts of hazing, including abduction on university property, and the harm that naturally flows therefrom. Foreseeability, in the context of determining the existence of a duty, is a question of law for the court.
Facts:
- On November 3, 1993, Jeffrey J. Knoll, a 19-year-old student at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL), was met by four or five active members of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity (FIJI) in the basement of Andrews Hall on the UNL campus.
- Knoll was tackled, handcuffed to an active member, and then taken to the FIJI house.
- At the FIJI house, Knoll was handcuffed to a radiator and, over approximately 2.5 hours, was given 15 shots of brandy and whiskey and 3 to 6 cans of beer by FIJI members, leading to severe intoxication (blood alcohol content of .209).
- After becoming ill, Knoll was moved to a third-floor restroom in the FIJI house, handcuffed to a toilet pipe, and left unattended.
- Knoll broke loose, attempted to escape by exiting the third-floor restroom window and sliding down a drainpipe, but he fell to the ground below and suffered severe injuries.
- The FIJI house, though situated on land owned by the Phi Gamma Delta House Corporation, was considered a student housing unit subject to the UNL Student Code of Conduct, which prohibited alcohol use, unreasonably dangerous conduct (including hazing), and violations of Nebraska law.
- The University was aware of at least two prior hazing incidents involving other fraternities (one involving physical removal of students from a building) and several instances of criminal conduct involving FIJI members, including alcohol possession, sexual assault, intoxication, and altercations.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey J. Knoll filed a tort action alleging negligence against the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (University) in the trial court.
- Both Knoll and the University filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, finding that the University did not owe Knoll a duty.
- Knoll appealed the trial court’s granting of the University’s motion for summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 university owe a duty to its student invitees to protect them from foreseeable acts of hazing, including abduction on university property, perpetrated by members of a fraternity, even when some events occur in a fraternity house subject to university regulations but not directly owned by the university?
Opinions:
Majority - Connolly, J.
Yes, the University owes a landowner-invitee duty to its students to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable acts of hazing, including student abduction on University property, and the harm that naturally flows therefrom. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment. The court applied a landowner liability theory, asserting that UNL students are invitees and that a business proprietor is liable for foreseeable adverse actions of third parties against invitees. It clarified that foreseeability, in the context of determining the existence of a legal duty, is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury, explicitly overruling prior inconsistent precedent. The court emphasized that the 'superior knowledge rule' does not apply to intentionally harmful acts of third parties, as an invitee's awareness of danger does not eliminate the landowner's duty to provide protection if the landowner has superior knowledge and ability to provide that protection. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the University's awareness of prior hazing incidents (even if not involving FIJI) and multiple instances of misconduct by FIJI members, the court found that the University could have foreseen various forms of student hazing, including abductions and their consequences. The University's exercise of control over the FIJI house, by designating it a 'student housing unit' subject to the Code of Conduct, further supported the existence of a duty.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for establishing the scope of a university's duty to protect its students from hazing and other third-party harms. By clarifying that foreseeability, when determining duty, is a question of law for the court, it provides a clearer standard for institutions to anticipate and mitigate risks. The ruling places a substantial burden on universities to actively monitor and enforce their codes of conduct, especially concerning student organizations like fraternities, even if the activities occur in non-university-owned facilities that are still subject to university regulations. This decision likely encourages more proactive intervention by universities to prevent hazing and related dangers, potentially increasing institutional liability for failing to do so.
