Student sues school after brutal attack
August 3, 2009 by Taylor HanniganPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Tech News, Uncategorized
A student who was badly beaten in a campus parking garage says the school should have done more to prevent the attack.
The student was attacked in a parking garage on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. Two armed assailants demanded money, and one of them stabbed her through the cheek with a knife.
To support her claims against the school, the student pointed out that the garage had no audio or video surveillance equipment and no attendant. There had also been prior crimes on campus – two involving unlawful entry, and three cases of theft with assault. But none of those crimes happened in the parking garage.
A jury awarded the student $400,000, but the verdict was wiped out on appeal.
Why? Because the school didn’t have a duty to protect the student from the attack. It couldn’t have “precisely foreseen” that a violent, armed attack would take place in its parking garage, the court said.
Cite: Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia v. DiSalvo
Should the verdict have stood? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Loading ...
August 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The verdict should not have stood. While the school cannot forsee a violent attack, they were obligated to be proactive and had some measures in place to assist students given the fact that crimes had happened prior to this attack.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
This is a school with a lot of problems.
It is also situated in an area where there is a lot of crime.
That said, the university is not able to afford much improvement, let alone video surveillance.
However, the university leaders (if they were able to think proactively) could have asked for federal money to hire additional security personnel.
So, should the verdict have stood?
No.
I agree with “Stunned”, above.
The history of crime is there…it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that its not a question of “if” but of “when” something like this would occur.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The VERDICT was in favor of the victim so, YES, it should have stood. The APPEAL should be overturned. The school SHOULD be “punished” for making NO attempt to protect its students from harm; Parking garages everywhere are notoriously dangerous places and there are many ways to provide security, some of which cost – relatively – very little.
The excuse that they couldn’t have ‘“precisely foreseen” that a violent, armed attack would take place in its parking garage, the court said’ is like saying that your fire insurance doesn’t have to pay because the fire started in the basement, not the kitchen, so it couldn’t have been “precisely foreseen.” Baloney!
August 5th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. First of all, video surveillance does not guarantee safety. If the school doesn’t have staff to watch it all day. Second of all, since when does every single institution have a ‘duty to protect’ everyone who may pass through? What happened to personal responsibility? Living your life? Security is wonderful, but it is never guaranteed. I realize the argument is about where you draw the lines of responsibility, but it’s just more evidence that we’re a nation of sissies, and getting worse every day.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
TWO against ONE;
ARMED against UNARMED;
stabbed in the face;
pay lots of money to us for an education;
we know similar crimes take place around here;
but if you get attacked –
too bad, sissy, quit complaining, get a life! Really?!?
August 6th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
No, not “too bad sissy, get a life”. Rather, call the cops and prosecute the bastards. It would be great if the school had 24/7 armed guards on every floor, or cameras with a monitor who would have been able to stop the crime in progress, or perhaps caught the guys on tape to facilitate their future capture & (I hope) severe punishment. That said, I just don’t feel it’s the SCHOOL’s fault, to the tune of $400k. It’s not the college’s fault that the girl in NYC can’t find a job. It’s not McDonald’s fault that a woman put coffee in her lap and burned herself, and it’s not the lifeguard’s fault if someone drowns in a pool before the guard can reach them, or if a person swims in an obviously unguarded area and has an accident. Life happens, and it can be ugly. It’s just not always someone eles’s fault.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I strongly agree with SM. Why is it always somebody else’s fault when something happens to you? Will you sue the city if you are robbed? If you slip and fall down because you are clumsy, will you look around for somebody -anybody- to sue?
August 20th, 2009 at 12:46 am
I’m very tired of people constantly using the McDonald’s coffee case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. People–Look up the details of this case so you know what you’re talking about!