Criminal Intrusions and Tort Liability



Stetson University College of Law

21st Annual National Conference on Law and Higher Education

Criminal Intrusions and Tort Liability --

How the Modern University Can Protect the Campus Community and Itself

Steven J. Healy

Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police, Wellesley College

Introduction

The landmark case, Mullins vs. Pine Manor College (389 Mass, 47, 449 N.E. 2d 331,1983), and several other high profile successful civil suits in the past two decades against colleges and universities have significantly altered the liability landscape for the higher education community. These cases show a direct link between the need for colleges and universities to maintain a professionally managed crime prevention program and the ability of an institution to protect its students and successfully reduce its liability for student victimization.

Other events, too, have converged simultaneously on the field of institutional tort liability to drastically alter how campus administrators should view the security posture and programming of their institution. First is the increased willingness of victims (or their estates) of violent crimes to seek redress through the civil court system.[1] According to a National Institute of Justice/Office for Victims of Crime bulletin, crime victims are turning more often to civil litigation as a "financial means for recovering from the ill effects of crime."[2] Civil litigation is often viewed as an important tool for victims of crime because it provides them with a chance to vindicate their rights, thus re-empowering them.[3] Often, as a result of a criminal act, a victim's life seems out of control. A civil court action can help a victim re-gain control of their life and assist them in putting their life back in balance.

Civil litigation can also serve as a de facto crime prevention effort. When criminals or other negligent third parties (such as malls, colleges or universities) realize that they will be made to pay for their action (or inaction in the case of third parties), these acts are often not repeated.[4] A successful civil lawsuit sends a strong message to criminals that "crime doesn't pay." Likewise, the message of "indifference to safety does not pay" is equally strong to third parties, such as colleges and universities that may be named in a tort liability case.

The Federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policies and Campus Crime Statistics Act has also served as a wakeup call for many institutions. The Federal law, which has been amended three times since its original passage in 1990, serves to assist students, their families and employees make informed choices about the safety of a particular college or university before electing to attend or work at that institution. The law mandates institutions that receive federal funds to disclose specified security policies and crime statistics to current and prospective students and employees. The law also requires these institutions to provide "timely warnings" to members of the campus community when certain crimes occur. Armed with this information, consumers, it is believed, can then make informed choices about the schools to attend and how to better protect themselves against potential victimization. Because the law carries with it the threat of severe penalties for non-compliance, most colleges and universities take serious the task of complying with the requirements of the statue.

It is both tragic and unfortunate that this important Federal law emerged from a brutal rape and murder. In 1986, Jeanne Ann Clery, a first year student at Lehigh University, was tortured, raped, and murdered in her dormitory room on the Lehigh University campus. Subsequent to Jeanne Clery's murder, the Clery family successfully sued the university for negligence in failing to take reasonable action to protect Jeanne from foreseeable harm. The Clery family used the proceeds from the lawsuit to form a campus crime advocacy organization, Security on Campus. It is through the work of the Clery family and Security on Campus that most state and Federal campus crime laws has emerged.

In response to these three convergent issues, many colleges and universities are becoming quite sophisticated with their efforts to provide for the safety and security of campus communities. These same institutions are also serious in their efforts to give current and prospective students and employers a true picture of the campus safety landscape. In a 1998 testimony to Congress, Dolores Stafford, a representative of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), stated that most institutions have taken considerable measures to comply with the provisions of the Clery Act. According to Stafford “there seems to be an underlying belief by some that institutions are hiding crime or purposely under-reporting crime. This is simply not the norm. The people responsible for security on college campuses have a great deal of integrity and many even feel personally responsible for reporting crime accurately. My colleagues and I in the campus security business want to work closely with the members of the Department of Education and the members of this committee to ensure that all students and their families are provided with accurate, meaningful information about campus security.”[5] Professional organizations, too, such as IACLEA and the Association of College and University Housing Officers – International (ACUHO-I), have taken a more proactive role developing professional standards for campus law enforcement and residence hall security. IACLEA and other law enforcement groups have been instrumental in developing industry-wide standards, conducting national and regional training, and advocating for campus law enforcement on both the state and federal levels.

In spite of the significant strides made in campus law enforcement and security, especially within the past 10 years, crime remains a reality on college campuses. Gone are the days when campuses were viewed as "safe, bucolic havens, academic groves where the pursuit of knowledge and the cultivation of fellowship shut out many of the threats and fears of everyday life.[6] While crime on campus has only slightly risen over the past few years, colleges and universities are experiencing increased reporting of crime, in part due to Federal and state laws mandating the disclosure of crime statistics.[7]&[8] Campus crime, today, more than ever, attracts widespread media attention and scrutiny. For example, during this past fall semester, several female students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, reported being attacked on the Amherst campus. One of those students was also sexually assaulted. These events garnered national media attention, with several large newspapers carrying the stories. When there is a crime, there is the possibility of violence and the tragedy of victims. And as victims turn more often to civil litigation, the modern university will be faced with the complex challenge of limiting its exposure to claims of negligence and the resulting liability. I submit that a paradigm shift is in order. If higher education administrators approach this task, not as a challenge to their financial stability and image, but as an opportunity to make their campuses safer for their communities, they will, in effect, also limit their exposure.

This paper will address the one area that is most problematic for campus safety and has wide implications for potential liability: residential security. This is a practitioner's guide to avoiding liability in this area. It is not the intent of this paper to fully examine each and every plausible scenario that may create potential vulnerability. It will however discuss safety inadequacies that may exist in residence halls and suggest strategies to avoid risk management nightmares. If campus administrators examine these practices, from a risk management viewpoint, they can make their campuses safer places and possibly avoid costly litigation and embarrassment.

Back to Basics

Following a violent criminal act on a college campus, a victim (or the victim's estate) may elect to pursue a civil remedy against the institution. In bringing such an action, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the university owed a duty to the plaintiff; 2) the university breached that duty; 3) the plaintiff was injured; and 4) the university was the proximate cause of the injury.[9] In order for a college or university to be held liable for a criminal act, the court must determine whether the institution had a "duty" to protect the victim from the criminal act, and if it, by some action or inaction, breached that "duty."[10] Generally, the courts will use one, both or all of the following theories of liability to determine the relationship between the plaintiff and institution, thereby proving or disproving a "duty."

✓ Special Relationship. Based on an expectation that the institution has a commitment to the safety of its students. In acknowledging this commitment, colleges and universities undertake to provide certain levels of protection and security for the student population. Students, according to this theory, rely on the institution's provision of basic safety and security measures.

✓ Landowner-Business Invitee. Much like landowners owe invitees a degree of reasonable care in inspecting and correcting dangerous conditions on its land, so does the university. This obligation includes the duty to warn invitees about certain foreseeable dangers on the property.

✓ Landlord-Tenant. In some jurisdictions, a landlord must warn tenants of potential dangers existing in properties controlled by the landlord. In the college setting, the institution serves as a landlord to resident students; therefore, the college must make efforts to warn resident students about foreseeable dangers and take action to mitigate those dangers.[11]

From a layman’s point of view, “duty” is essentially an obligation on the part of the institution to create an environment that is reasonably safe. Safety on campus is, of course, a multi-dimensional issue. Colleges and universities must not only take steps to protect students and employees from foreseeable internal crime, but also from potential foreseeable criminal intrusions. A criminal intrusion occurs when an individual not directly associated with the campus community enters the campus and commits a crime.

Both the landowner-invitee and landowner-tenant theories dictate efforts on part of the institution to correct foreseeable dangers, such as an inoperative locking mechanism. The theories also require the landlord to warn students about dangerous conditions or defects directly under the control of the landlord.[12]

One positive consequence of the Clery Act is that it directly supports the case law in two respects. First, by requiring institutions to disclose its crime statistics, the law in effect forces colleges and universities to draw a picture of the crime problems on campus. Secondly, the law also requires institutions to provide “timely warning reports” to members of the campus community regarding specific crimes that represent a threat to students and employees.[13] While the law does not mandate specific security procedures, it does require institutions to publish their respective policies relating to the security of campus facilities. This requirement, in essence, creates a requirement for the institution to develop substantive policies and procedures.

According to Lake, the Courts, in deciding several university tort cases, have closely weighed and evaluated the following factors:[14]

• Foreseeability. According to Smith, institutions have: a "a duty to be forthcoming about risks; a duty to warn about risks; and a duty to provide adequate protection."[15] The mere knowledge (foreseeability) about a particular crime or type of crime may create a duty. Colleges and universities have a duty to disclose crime information to current and prospective students and employees, as established by the Campus Security Act. Additionally, failure to disclose crime statistics may subject the institution to other liabilities, including an audit by the Department of Education, the implementing agency for the Campus Security Act.[16] Institutions likewise have a "duty to warn" about potential dangers, when those dangers are foreseeable.[17] This theory was established in Peterson vs. San Francisco Community College District (Cal. 1984). In this case, the court stated that the college had breached its duty to the victim because it had prior knowledge of similar incidents that had occurred in the same location, as had the crime against the victim. Finally, the courts view colleges and universities much the same as they do other premise owners when determining whether or not the institution has a responsible to provide adequate security. The Mullins vs. Pine Manor College (Mass. 1982) case established the college's responsibility to provide adequate security in light of foreseeable dangers.[18]

• Nature/type of risk/harm. Lake points to the tendency of the courts to be particularly sensitive to the type of crime that is committed. Sexual assaults may receive more concern then would an assault arising from an alcohol-induced brawl.[19] It is important to note that most of the current case law involving sexual assaults, the assaults occurred in residential facilities provided by the college or university. This fact underscores the importance of sound residential security procedures and practices.

• Closeness. The theory of closeness refers to the scope of the relationship between the institution and the victim during the time of the crime. If the crime occurs in a residential facility, the relationship is considered extremely close.[20]

• Moral blame and responsibility. Moral blame and responsibility. Lake feels that this factor is important in developing safety and security strategies. The proper relationship, according to Lake, is one of "shared responsibility," where both the student and institution recognizes and accepts its role in providing for the safety of the community. The turning point in this equation is whether both parties recognize their responsibilities. The institution must ensure that they widely publicize the need for students and employees to participate in the process of ensuring a safe community.

• Preventing future harm. Preventing future harm. Institutions cannot run away from their responsibilities to address student or employee behaviors that are potentially dangerous to individuals or the wider community. Once administrators recognize these behaviors, they must initiate some type of action to positively affect a change.

• Burden on university and the larger community. Burden. In considering burden, the courts must strike a balance between what is reasonable and affordable for colleges and universities. The institution has a responsibility to implement measure that provide for the public safety, yet allows them to continue their primary mission of educating students. This does not mean that institutions should use the mantra of cost-prohibition to avoid providing adequate security.

• Insurance. Lake suggest that courts consider insurance as "collateral sources" of compensation for some tort injuries resulting from criminal acts on campus.

These factors should assist the modern university in understanding the landscape through which courts will consider tort cases involving institutions of higher education. It is important for administrators to take a systems approach with deciding whether or not to implement a particular safety initiative on campus. This approach dictates understanding the culture of the student population, the competency level of the campus law enforcement unit (CLEU), the relationship between the CLEU and the student affairs component, and the campus infrastructure, especially relating to the master plan (for building modifications, high-speed network installation, etc.). All of these components play a major role in determining the overall security posture of the campus. All of these components are essential in a strong comprehensive residential security program.

Residential Facility Security

Current case law is replete with cases involving violent crimes that occurred in residential facilities owned or controlled by colleges and universities. As mentioned above, the "relationship" factor weighs heavily when the courts hear cases that occurred in residence halls or apartments. In these campus crime liability cases, the courts openly acknowledged the relative "dependent" nature of the relationship between students and their institutions.[21] In many cases, students have little choice concerning the nature and type of housing supplied by the institution. Many institutions have policies that make it mandatory for first and second-year students to live in residential spaces provided by the institution. These policies, in effect, create a greater responsibility on the part of the institution to provide a safe environment for those resident students.

Students often have little say in the types of security procedures and physical security equipment used to protect them. The types of locking mechanisms used on residence room doors and the card access systems (if used) used for entry control are often chosen in isolation from the student body. This is not to imply that students should necessarily become involved in these decisions or that involving them lessens the liability faced by colleges and universities. The point here is that because the institution chooses unilaterally to provide one system or implement one policy as opposed to another, the evolving relationship is one of dependency for safety and security. Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 323 (1965) further amplifies this point:

"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increase the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking."[22]

The court, in Mullins vs. Pine Manor College, further stated, that "it must also be shown that either (a) the failure to exercise due care increased the risk of harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the students' reliance on the undertaking."[23] Where it can be shown that students or employees rely on the institution to provide a level of security that a reasonable person would expect, the scales tip favorably to the side of a plaintiff.

In Miller vs. New York State (478 N.Y.S.2d 829, NY 1984) the courts also reaffirmed the notion that colleges have a similar duty to students as do landlords to their tenants.[24] The courts found that the State University of New York at Stony Brook had "breached in duty to protect its 'tenants' from reasonably foreseeable criminal assaults by failing to lock the outer doors" in a residential facility. In Miller, a stranger who had entered the hall through an unlocked door raped a student in the residence hall. The issue of foreseeability was also an important factor in the Miller case. The plaintiff offered substantial evidence that pointed to "a reasonably foreseeable likelihood of criminal intrusion" into the residence hall.[25] The New York Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence that the state was a proximate cause of the sexual assault and remitted the case.

Institutions must be willing to recognize the very close link between foreseeability and its willingness to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Clery Act. Colleges and universities should accept the Federal law as a tool to assist in its mission to analyze crime in residence halls and initiate appropriate crime prevention and reduction strategies. A strong crime and risk analysis effort is paramount to reducing an institution's liability exposure. The ability to show a concerted effort to prevent and reduce crime and a corresponding willingness to warn residents of potential dangerous situations is evidence of "preventing future harm."

Against this backdrop, institutions would be advised to exercise prudence in its very serious duty to provide adequate campus security. While each case will obviously be determined on its own merit, institutions must determine what it considers sufficient, in light of the available case history and professional standards, to satisfy its duty to protect against foreseeable crime. As a minimum, if institutions are uncertain as to what security measures should be implemented, it should consult with professional organizations that can provide a security audit with recommendation for improved security measures. The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) offers a Loaned Executive Management Assistance Program (LEMAP) to review campus security programs and make recommendations for improvement.

An institution cannot isolate one or two primary variables in establishing an effective residential security system. To the contrary, an effective system will be comprised of several coordinated variables to produce a sound security posture. Colleges and universities must implement the right mix of administrative procedures, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) measures, technology, and the appropriate staffs, when and where necessary. When addressing staffing concerns and applicable training, it is important to note that a proactive security posture seeks to deter and prevent crime before it occurs. Too often, administrators fail to recognize that a campus police or security unit must develop both a capacity for proactive programming and a capacity for traditional policing methods.

What Works in Residential Security

The following diagram offers a useful model to assist college and university administrators manage their crime prevention efforts. Using this model, administrators can recognize that the environment (residence halls) is just one of the key variables that must be affected in order to reduce the overall liability exposure.

Likewise, potential victims (students) should be targets for continuous crime prevention education and training. Crime prevention is a cost-effective way to make residence halls safer. Crime prevention can benefit a residential community in three ways: 1) it can deter specific kinds of crime, such as unauthorized entries into residence halls; 2) it often mobilizes residents; and 3) it develops physical and social environments inhospitable to crime.[26] This programming should be well designed with the assistance of student affairs representatives and faculty members. Too often, campus law enforcement administrators fail to take advantage of the vast knowledge and assistance that faculty members can bring to the development of an effective program. The overall focus of the institution's efforts should be on those variables that they can directly impact, such as the environment and student.

Campus law enforcement administrators should take advantage of best practices and models being used elsewhere in policing, such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, to improve the safety posture of the residential facilities.

✓ CPTED: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing and deterring crime. Institutions need not wait until they build new facilities to use the elements of CPTED. Renovations and building modifications allow colleges and universities to review the CPTED elements and implement them, when possible. A high impact/low cost matrix analysis also provides a list of those measures that campuses may elect to implement, as funding becomes available.

✓ Access control, an important element of CPTED, should be of primary concern for colleges and universities. Access control encompasses not only how students enter residence halls, but also how exterior doors channel people in a particular direction, how secondary access doors are controlled, and what methods are in place to inform the CLEU or residents if doors are propped open.

✓ As part of access control, institutions should conduct a through review of key control procedures. This should include tracking when locks are changed and who has copies of specific keys. If a card access system is used, institutions should ensure that only those persons who should have access to particular buildings have that access.

✓ Augmenting the automated entry control system. Electronic access systems are not foolproof. Planners should consider the inherent risks in electronic systems. Students may prop doors to avoid having to use their cards, and may allow unauthorized individuals to "piggyback" behind an authorized individual. While these are known vulnerabilities in electronic access systems, there are many measures that can be put in place to compensate for these problems. Some colleges elect to use paid student security members who monitor doors, while others use a community-building/community-service model which mandates all residents to monitor doors on a pre-determined schedule. Whatever method is used, institutions must realize that there are inherent risks present in any system.

✓ Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). Intrusion Detection Systems or entry alarms can be used in a variety of ways to bolster the security posture of a residential facility. Alarms can warn of unauthorized entries into secondary doors, they can signify doors that have been left open for extended periods of time, and can be used as a panic or duress alarms for people who need assistance. Institutions that elect to employ IDS must ensure that they have the infrastructure in place to maintain the system in working order. High rates of nuisance or false alarms tend to negate the effective of the system by creating a system that is often ignored or not taken seriously.

✓ Police presence. Many institutions tend to limit the places and frequency with which campus law enforcement officers enter residence halls. Some officers are often limited to only visiting common areas within the halls. While there is no consistent data that shows whether or not officer presence in residence halls have an impact on crimes committed by third parties, institutions should develop their policies based on informed decisions and not merely on past practices. Institutions should review, for example, data from other high rise apartment complexes, subsidized housing areas, and hospitals to determine whether a law enforcement presence impacts the rate of crime in those facilities.

✓ Problem-Solving Analysis. Campus law enforcement units have long used the principles of community-oriented policing and problem solving to address specific crime and disorder related problems. Institutions should rely more heavily on this multi-disciplinary and community-based approach to reduce victimization.

✓ Community Meetings to set Priorities. These meetings could focus on the collaborative, community approach to deterring and preventing crimes on the campus. During these sessions, administrators could explain the institution and student's responsibility for preventing crime.

Conclusion

Whatever methods administrators choose to implement, the overall goal is to create a safer residential environment, where students can live and study, relatively free from the fear of crime. Of course, no campus will ever be totally free from crime. Institutions must balance the need to maintain safety and the imperative of reducing exposure to liability with the ideal of an open academic environment. The middle ground then, is a campus that is reasonably safe and comfortably open.

IACLEA Recommended Crime Prevention and Campus Protection Practices for Colleges and Universities

Residence Hall Security –

General Issues

1. A written visitation policy should be in place and well publicized within the residential community. Visitation policies should require all visitors to be escorted by a resident. In addition, residents should be held accountable for the actions of their visitors.

2. All residents should be exposed to an annual crime prevention and awareness orientation presentation. During this presentation, issues of personal safety and security should be addressed, including topics relating to loaning and duplication of keys, propping of doors, visitation issues, admitting of strangers, alcohol and drug policy, weapons policy, etc.

3. All residence hall staff should receive an annual crime prevention and awareness orientation. Building security issues (i.e. keys, door problems, maintenance reporting, etc.) and crisis intervention techniques, among other topics, should be addressed during this program.

4. Housing contracts should be provided with language specifically addressing security issues related to the building (i.e., door propping, key control, tampering with security hardware, weapons policy, etc.).

5. The organization supplying maintenance service to residence halls should develop a written procedure regarding the work order process. This procedure should place the highest of priorities on security-related repairs if the repair degrades the security conditions of a residence hall facility.

6. Reasonably accessible perimeter windows should be secured from casual exterior entry at all times. Where ventilation is required, a means should be provided to secure the window from entry while still permitting ventilation. In highly concealed locations, security screens or grills should be installed. Similar screens are recommended for locations where codes require windows to remain accessible for escape even though the windows may not be concealed.

7. Residents should be provided with keys or access cards that provide access only to that which is required to enter their living unit.

8. Signs should be posted at the building entrances warning against trespassers and unauthorized solicitors. Signs should also direct non-residents to the most appropriate location of entry.

9. Student room doors should be equipped with ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Grade 1 locksets with key or card entry and a door viewer. Latch bolts employed with such devices should be equipped with a dead latch. Deadbolt functions should be employed where living units open directly to the exterior. If the lockset used is equipped with lever trim, interlocking or stop-type (with a return installed on the door bottom) thresholds should be provided. If hinge knuckles are visible on the exterior of the door, special precautions should be taken to ensure the door cannot be removed from the frame by removal of the hinge pins.

10. Room doors should be solid core wood or hollow metal (ANSI Grade II minimum) construction. If wood frames are used, reinforced strikes are recommended.

11. Keys used for residence hall entry doors and resident room doors should be of such design that key blanks are not readily obtainable; and a specialized machine is required for cutting the key.

12. A policy should exist requiring lost room door keys to be replaced within two business days or less under special circumstances (i.e. keys stolen) after reporting the key loss. The policy should also indicate the institutional response to other lost keys where the impact of the loss is more substantial, i.e. master keys or main entry door keys.

13. All secured doors in residence halls should be inspected at least annually to insure they close and properly latch when released from a one-inch open position without any external pressure applied.

14. The campus-housing department should develop a policies and procedures manual to direct routine activities related to security personnel in both routine and emergency conditions.

Additional Requirements for Multi-Unit Facilities

15. Residential space should be segregated from non-residential space with the residential space secured on a 24-hour basis. A telephone or intercom system should be provided at one or more select entry points to accommodate visitors and delivery persons.

16. The campus-housing department and the campus protection agency should review entry requirements of each residence hall and determine the feasibility or necessity of a staffed desk position located within the hall. The deliberation should consider both internal and external risk factors with staffing hours ranging from a 24-hour position to part time. Consideration should also be afforded to the role this position takes in the access control process.

17. Electronic access control should be considered for one or more entry doors in each dorm style residence hall. The system should require an individually coded card or key for entry. Upon loss, only the individual card or key need be removed or voided from the system without the need to change other cards or keys in the system.

18. All secured doors forming a perimeter into the residential space (including those equipped with card readers) should be equipped with an alarm to indicate a propped door condition. This alarm should indicate that the door is unlocked or unlatched rather than simply closed.

19. Resident rooms should be equipped with telephones that can be used to communicate with visitors at the entry doors.

-----------------------

[1] Ben Clery, "Commercial Insurance Carriers Write Disclaimers for Crime, Campus Watch Newsletter, Volume 1, No. 1, p. 1.

[2] Civil Legal Remedies for Crime Victims Bulletin, Office for Victims of Crime, National Institute of Justice, p. 1.

[3] Ibid. p. 3.

[4] Office for Victims of Crime, 1997 National Victim Assistance Academy, Chapter 5, "Civil Remedies for Victims of Crime, p. 2.

[5] Dolores A. Stafford, Director of University Police, in her statement to Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services Educations and Related Agencies of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, March 5, 1998

[6] Todd S. Purdum, The Reality of Crime on Campus, N.Y. Times, April 10, 1988.

[7] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report, 1998 "Crime in the United States," and Security on Campus News Journal Article "Violent Crimes Reported on Campus Increase Slightly in 1998." Although this article cites crime statistics from the UCR, only a small portion of colleges and universities report their statistics to the UCR, as the system is voluntary.

[8] Steve W. Batson, Minimizing Liability for the College Administrator: Female Student Protection, School Law Update, 1986.

[9] Philip Burling, Crime on Campus: Analyzing and Managing the Increasing Risk of Institutional Liability, National Association of College and University Attorneys, January 1991.

[10] Anita Raddatz, Crime on Campus: Institutional Tort Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third Parties, National Association of College and University Attorneys, 1988.

[11] Burling, p. 5.

[12] Ibid., p. 5.

[13] The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.

[14] This is taken in part from an article by Peter F. Lake, "The Rise and Fall of In Loco Parentis and Other Protective Tort Defenses in Higher Education Law," page 23.

[15] Michael Clay Smith, Institutional Liability Resulting From Campus Crime: an Analysis of Recovery, 55 W. EDUC. L. Report. 361

[16] To date, the Department of Education has conducted 6 audits of colleges and universities. While none of the institutions have been penalized financially, there are considerable costs associated with the conduct of an audit.

[17] Michael C. Griffaton, "Forewarned is Forearmed: The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Action of 1990 and the Future of Institutional Liability for Student Victimization," p. 16.

[18] Ibid., p. 17.

[19] Lake, p. 24.

[20] Ibid., p. 24.

[21] Griffaton, p. 13.

[22] Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 323 (1965).

[23] Mullins vs. Pine Manor College (389 Mass. 47, 449 N.E.2d 331)

[24] Miller v. New York, 467 N.E.2d 493 (NY 1984)

[25] Batson, p. 5.

[26] Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph, Crime Prevention and Community Policing: A Vital Partnership, p. 8.

-----------------------

Institution’s Exposure to Liability

Potential Victims

Potential Criminals

Environment

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download