University of Denver v. Whitlock
1987 Colo. LEXIS 621, 42 Educ. L. Rep. 950, 744 P.2d 54 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university does not owe a duty of care to its adult students to protect them from injuries arising from their voluntary recreational activities on leased fraternity property, absent a special relationship creating a duty of affirmative action.
Facts:
- On June 19, 1978, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Oscar Whitlock, then twenty years old, suffered a paralyzing injury while attempting a one-and-three-quarters front flip on a trampoline.
- The trampoline was owned by the Beta Theta Pi fraternity (Beta house) and was situated on the front yard of the fraternity premises, located on the University of Denver campus.
- Oscar Whitlock was a student at the University of Denver and a member of the Beta house, where he held the office of acting house manager.
- Whitlock had extensive experience jumping on trampolines, having begun in junior high school and successfully executed the one-and-three-quarters front flip between seventy-five and one hundred times prior to his injury.
- On the evening of his injury, Whitlock had been drinking beer, vodka, and scotch at a party at the Beta house, and later used the trampoline with only dim illumination from the fraternity house windows, an outside light, and two streetlights.
- The property on which the Beta house was located was leased to the fraternity by the University of Denver under a ninety-nine year lease, which stipulated occupation 'under control of the tenant' for fraternity purposes.
- The University had promulgated no rules of conduct relating to private trampoline use and its actual control over the fraternity's activities was minimal, primarily related to fire protection, maintenance, and one advisory suggestion to take down the trampoline when not in use.
Procedural Posture:
- Oscar Whitlock sued the University of Denver, among other parties, for negligence in Denver District Court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Whitlock, assessing total damages at $7,300,000, which was reduced to $5,256,000 against the University after accounting for Whitlock’s twenty-eight percent comparative negligence.
- The University moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial.
- The trial court granted the University's motion for JNOV, holding that as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could have found the University more negligent than Whitlock, and alternatively ordered a remittitur reducing the award to $4,000,000, or a new trial if the remittitur was disapproved.
- Whitlock appealed, and the University cross-appealed, to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed all three rulings of the trial court, holding that the University owed Whitlock a duty of due care to remove or supervise the trampoline use, and directed that the jury’s verdict and damages be reinstated.
- The University then petitioned for certiorari review by the Colorado Supreme Court.
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 the University of Denver owe a duty of care to an adult student, who is a member of a fraternity leasing land from the university, to protect him against injury resulting from his voluntary use of a fraternity-owned trampoline under unsafe conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Lohr, Justice
No, the University of Denver did not owe a duty of care to Oscar Whitlock to protect him from the injuries he sustained while using the fraternity's trampoline. The court affirmed that a negligence claim requires a legal duty, and the determination of duty is a question of law. Crucially, the court distinguished between 'misfeasance' (active misconduct creating a new risk) and 'nonfeasance' (passive inaction or failure to protect from harm), noting that a duty to act in nonfeasance cases is only recognized when a 'special relationship' exists between the parties. Such relationships, like common carrier/passenger or innkeeper/guest, are predicated on dependence or mutual dependence. The court found no such special relationship between the University and Whitlock. The historical in loco parentis doctrine, which once assigned custodial duties to universities, has largely eroded in modern times. Today, universities are regarded as educational institutions fostering student autonomy and maturation, not as custodians. Imposing a duty on the University in this case would encourage it to exercise excessive control over students' private recreational choices, conflicting with the policy of promoting student independence and a modern college education. Furthermore, the lease agreement between the University and the fraternity did not establish a special relationship giving rise to a duty, as it granted significant control to the fraternity and the University's oversight was minimal and unrelated to recreational activities. Whitlock was an adult with extensive trampoline experience, aware of the risks, and there was no evidence he or the fraternity relied on the University for safety evaluations regarding trampoline use. Therefore, the University had no duty to eliminate or supervise the private use of trampolines on its campus.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of a university's duty of care towards its adult students, particularly concerning voluntary recreational activities. By emphasizing the distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance and requiring a 'special relationship' for duties of affirmative action, the court reinforces the principle of student autonomy. The decision underscores the modern view of universities as educational rather than custodial institutions, rejecting the outdated in loco parentis doctrine for adult students. This precedent will likely lead courts to scrutinize claims of university liability for student injuries by demanding concrete evidence of a special relationship or direct university control over the hazardous activity, rather than relying on the general student-university affiliation.
