Seattle University student Catherine Webert was walking on a campus pathway when she tripped and fell, sustaining injuries to her hand, wrist, knee, chin and mouth.

The area of the walkway where Webert fell had been damaged by plant roots, but the school had made repairs. Even after the repair, the walkway was not completely even. Webert said that when she fell there was foliage that created a shade canopy and prevented her from seeing the uneven area until she was “mid-step.”

Webert sued the school for negligence, claiming the walkway created an unreasonable risk of harm.

She lost. Weber’s only evidence that the walkway was unreasonably dangerous was the fact that she fell, and it was not enough to establish legal liability. Even if she had shown an unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the time, there was no evidence the university should have known she would fail to appreciate the danger and protect herself from getting hurt.

Cite: Webert v. Seattle University.

Should the college have been held liable? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

The visitor was injured while trying to maneuver three steps that separated an upper patio from a lower one on premises owned by the City University of New York.

She said she got hurt because a step was too steep, adding that taking the steps was the only way for her to exit the premises.

A trial court refused to grant judgment for the school, but an appeals court reversed.

The school doesn’t have a duty to protect visitors from — or warn them about — conditions that are obvious and are not inherently dangerous, the appeals court said. Any danger posed by the steps was clear to see and was avoidable, it concluded.

Cite: Losciuto v. City University of New York.

Please leave your comment below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

To prepare for an upcoming football game, workers at the University of Texas at Austin closed off some areas of the campus.

In one area, it stretched a metal chain across an entrance to a service driveway. It also placed an eight-foot-wide orange and white barricade in front of the chain.

The night before the game, Robert Hayes rode his bike onto the campus. As he moved toward the service driveway, he saw the barricade. Instead of braking, he went to the left of the barricade – and right into the chain.

Hayes sued the school, claiming the chain was a “defect” that the school should have warned him about.

To win, he needed to show the chain was either a “special defect” or a “premises defect.” He didn’t make either showing.

“Special defects” are conditions, such as excavations or road obstructions, that “pose a threat to ordinary users.” Hayes was not an “ordinary user” because an ordinary user wouldn’t have gone past the barricade, the court said. Therefore, the chain did not create a “special defect.”

Nor did Hayes show the presence of a premises defect, because the school had closed the road and had no reason to think the chain created a danger.

Cite: University of Texas at Austin v. Hayes.

Have a comment? Please add it below – and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Northwestern State University student Patricia Antley went to the ballroom of the student union building to finalize some details relating to her upcoming graduation ceremony.

The school called the one-day event “Grad Fest.” Students were able to finalize paperwork, select graduation invitations, be fitted for a cap and gown, and purchase items relating to graduation. Vendors set up stations on a three-tier stage in a ballroom. Antley fell as she left the station of one of the vendors, sustaining serious injuries.

A jury said the school should pay Antley $65,000 for past, present and future pain and suffering. It also awarded her $26,000 for past, present and future mental anguish and permanent disability. The trial court tacked on another $10,000 following a post-trial motion.

When the school appealed, Antley responded by asking the court to increase the award of damages.

The court agreed that she was entitled to more money. It noted that a long-time employee who was in charge of the student union acknowledged that he was aware of the hazard beforehand but failed to reduce or eliminate it, such as by roping off areas or posting warning signs.

The court then took a closer look at the many problems Antley said were caused by the fall. It noted that she sustained a fractured patella, a partially torn knee ligament, a fracture of the elbow and rib cage contusions. It also pointed out that she had developed a condition causing the involuntary leakage of urine from her bladder, as well as back and wrist problems. And her husband testified that “she [had] ceased to be her jovial self.”

In light of this evidence, the court increased the amount awarded for past, present and future pain and suffering from $65,000 to $150,000.

Cite: Antley v. State of Louisiana.

Was the damages award too high? Tell us what you think — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

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.