Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Gross
758 So. 2d 86, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 656, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 243 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a university requires students to participate in an off-campus program and has control over the placement, it undertakes a duty to act with reasonable care in assigning students, particularly when it has knowledge that a placement site is unreasonably dangerous.
Facts:
- Bethany Jill Gross was a graduate student in the doctorate psychology program at Nova Southeastern University (Nova).
- The program required students to complete an eleven-month, off-campus internship, known as a 'practicum,' to graduate.
- Nova provided students with a list of approved practicum sites, from which students selected six preferences.
- Nova had the final say in placements and assigned Gross to the Family Services Agency, Inc. (FSA).
- Prior to Gross's assignment, Nova had been made aware of a number of criminal incidents that had occurred at or near the FSA parking lot.
- One evening while leaving her internship, Gross was accosted in the FSA parking lot by an armed assailant.
- Gross was subsequently abducted from the parking lot, robbed, and sexually assaulted.
Procedural Posture:
- Bethany Jill Gross sued Nova Southeastern University for negligence in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Nova, finding the university owed no duty of care to Gross.
- Gross, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Nova did owe Gross a duty.
- The Fourth District then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
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 have a duty to exercise reasonable care when assigning a student to a mandatory off-campus internship site that the university knows to be unreasonably dangerous, such that it may be found liable in tort if the student is subsequently injured?
Opinions:
Majority - Quince, J.
Yes. A university has a duty to exercise reasonable care when assigning students to mandatory off-campus internships it knows to be dangerous. The court reasoned that while the traditional 'in loco parentis' doctrine does not apply to adult students, a duty arises from general principles of tort law. Because Nova exercised control over its students by requiring the practicum and assigning the specific location, it assumed a corresponding duty to act reasonably in making those assignments. The court applied the 'undertaker's doctrine,' which holds that one who undertakes to act, even without an initial obligation, must do so with reasonable care. By creating and managing the internship program, Nova's actions created a foreseeable zone of risk, establishing a duty of ordinary care. The student's own knowledge of the danger does not eliminate the university's duty but is relevant for a jury to consider regarding breach, causation, and comparative fault.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of a university's duty of care toward its adult students, moving beyond the traditional limitations of the 'in loco parentis' doctrine. By applying general negligence principles, the court established that a university's control over a mandatory academic requirement, like an internship placement, creates a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm caused by third parties. This precedent makes universities more accountable for the off-campus programs they administer, requiring them to consider student safety when vetting and approving placement sites. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on what constitutes 'reasonable care' by a university in specific circumstances.
