A civil wrong (other than a breach of contract) where one party’s wrongful act or failure to act causes harm to another, leading to legal liability for money damages. Negligence is the most common form of tort in university settings.
When Is the University Responsible?
How duty, contractual obligations, and public law shape institutional liability
Hypothetical Situation
A student organization reserves a campus auditorium and pays the required fee.
Hours before the event, the university cancels the reservation because administrators anticipate disruption. State law and the university’s published facilities policy require written notice, a stated reason, and a refund when a reservation is cancelled.
The organization receives no explanation or refund. During an improvised off-campus event, an attendee is injured.
Key Concepts
Liability: The legal responsibility or obligation of a party to compensate another for harm caused by their actions, negligence, or breach of duty.
A legally binding agreement between two or more parties that creates mutual obligations enforceable by law. A breach occurs when a party fails to fulfill their promised duties under the agreement.
Laws governing public institutions that may impose duties, require procedures, or establish governmental protections, such as immunity from suit. The duty or protection comes from the rule itself, not from conduct or agreement.
Liability Requires Obligation
Where did the university’s alleged obligation come from?
To establish liability for negligence, a plaintiff must first prove the defendant owed them a legal duty of care (an obligation to act reasonably or protect against foreseeable harm).
Liability for breach of contract requires a legal obligation created by an enforceable promise or agreement.
Liability may arise when statutes or regulations impose a legal duty, limit governmental immunity, or require a public institution to follow specific procedures before it acts.
An injury alone does not establish liability. Plaintiffs must prove a specific legal duty or breach under tort, contract, or statute.
04Institutional LiabilityHow Courts Analyze a Claim
01Identify the legal basisDuty, agreement, statutory duty, or more than one
02State what must be provedList the legal requirements before debating the facts
03Apply the material factsFocus on facts that satisfy or defeat a requirement
04Consider limits and remediesImmunity, causation, damages, and available relief
The story matters because particular facts satisfy particular legal requirements.
Obligation (Duty)→Breach→Causation→Harm=Liability
05Institutional LiabilityGroup Case Assignments
Each group will teach one assigned case. The cases collectively examine institutional responsibility.
Bradshaw v. Rawlings
Duty, control, and adult students
Brown v. Wichita State
Contract, agency, and immunity
Brown v. Florida State Board of Regents
Public institutions and operational negligence
What Each Group Must Determine
What happened?
Use only facts that mattered to the court.
What claims did the plaintiffs make?
Name every legal theory the court addressed.
What did the plaintiffs need to establish?
Explain the relevant legal requirements.
What issue determined the decision?
Identify the disputed requirement or defense.
What did the court decide?
Distinguish permission to proceed from final liability.
What should university officials learn?
Give one careful lesson from the decision.
Group 1 Presents: Bradshaw v. Rawlings
Tort and dutyConsider the relationship between institutional control and legal duty.
08Institutional LiabilityClass Analysis
Read the class's answers, then compare them with the summary that follows.
Responses from Group 1’s prompts
09Institutional LiabilityThe Decline of In Loco Parentis
Bradshaw v. Rawlings (3d Cir. 1979)
Summary of the six questions above.
Is a university responsible for supervising adult students’ off-campus personal choices?
Student Autonomy vs. In Loco Parentis
The decline of in loco parentis in higher education. It asks whether modern universities are custodial caretakers responsible for student behavior off-campus, or whether colleges owe no custodial duty to protect adult students from another student’s off-campus conduct, as the Third Circuit held for the student riding in the drinking driver’s car.
Marking a major turning point in higher education law, this case involved a student who was under the drinking age and was injured as a passenger in a car driven by another student who had been drinking, after a college-sponsored sophomore class picnic. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that colleges do not have a duty to supervise or protect adult students from harm caused by another student’s off-campus drinking. The decision marked a major step in the decline of the doctrine of in loco parentis (acting in place of a parent) for higher education institutions: modern college students are legal adults, and colleges generally do not owe them a custodial duty for their off-campus choices.
Group 2 Presents: Brown v. Wichita State
Contract and agencyConsider the connection between the written agreement and the people harmed in the crash.
11Institutional LiabilityClass Analysis
Read the class's answers, then compare them with the summary that follows.
Responses from Group 2’s prompts
12Institutional LiabilityGovernmental Immunity vs. University Enterprise
Brown v. Wichita State University (Kan. 1975/1976)
Summary of the six questions above.
Can state immunity shield a public university when it acts as a business enterprise?
Proprietary Activity & Sovereign Immunity
Proprietary activities vs. Governmental immunity. It asks whether a public institution functions as a protected government organ or a commercial enterprise when engaging in business activities like contracting charter flights for sports teams.
Arising from the catastrophic 1970 plane crash that killed members of the Wichita State football team and faculty, this case dealt with institutional tort liability, contract breaches, and sovereign immunity. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that when a university engages in commercial or proprietary activities (such as chartering flights for intercollegiate athletic events through an athletic corporation), it cannot shield itself behind state governmental immunity against tort claims.
Later development. On rehearing in 1976, the court withdrew the immunity ruling and kept the contract and agency rulings, because the university was bound through its athletic corporation as its agent under the Aviation Services Agreement and the players could pursue the promised passenger-liability insurance as intended beneficiaries, though the same tort theory would likely not work in Texas, where public institutions are treated as an arm of the state.
Group 3 Presents: Brown v. Florida State Board of Regents
Public institutionConsider the line between a protected government decision and negligent operation.
14Institutional LiabilityClass Analysis
Read the class's answers, then compare them with the summary that follows.
Responses from Group 3’s prompts
15Institutional LiabilityOperational Duty & Sovereign Immunity
Brown v. Florida State Board of Regents (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Summary of the six questions above.
Does running campus facilities create a basic day-to-day duty of care?
Premises & Operational Duty
Operational-level duty vs. Discretionary policy. It asks whether running a campus park creates the same basic property-owner duty of care to warn or protect users from known dangers as a private business would have.
Centered on a tragic drowning in a lake located on state university property, this case addressed university premises liability and the undertaking of a duty of care. It shows that sovereign immunity does not automatically protect the day-to-day operation of a university facility: while universities no longer police student personal conduct like parents, they still carry standard landowner obligations (duty to warn, maintain reasonably safe premises, and responsibly manage university-owned facilities), and the court allowed the negligence claim to proceed past dismissal without deciding final liability.
Summary
CaseQuestionCourts
BradshawDid the college owe a duty to protect an adult student from off-campus harm?No control, no custodial duty.
Wichita StateCould the university be bound by an agreement intended to protect the players?Immunity blocked tort, but contract remained possible.
FloridaDid sovereign immunity protect the decision to operate the lake, the way the university operated it, or both?Policy was protected; negligent operation was not automatically protected.
Return to the Hypothetical
The opening scenario could raise more than one kind of legal question.
A student organization reserves a campus auditorium and pays the required fee.
Hours before the event, the university cancels the reservation because administrators anticipate disruption. State law and the university’s published facilities policy require written notice, a stated reason, and a refund when a reservation is cancelled.
The organization receives no explanation or refund. During an improvised off-campus event, an attendee is injured.
Did the institution owe a duty to act reasonably?
Did the institution make an enforceable commitment?
Did a statute or public duty impose an obligation the institution failed to meet?
Where the class is landing
Checking…Tort · safety and care0
Contract · promises and rules0
Statutory · public law0
More than one0
Cases and Supporting Sources
Assigned cases
Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135 (3d Cir. 1979). https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/612/612.F2d.135.79-1412.79-1409.html
Brown v. Florida State Board of Regents, 513 So. 2d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987). https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/district-courts-of-appeal/1987/513-so-2d-184.html
Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 540 P.2d 66 (Kan. 1975). https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1975/47-363-1-0.html
Brown v. Wichita State University, 219 Kan. 2, 547 P.2d 1015 (Kan. 1976) (opinion on rehearing). https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1976/47-363-1.html
Definitions and context
Connelly, C. (2020, October 1). Three generations later, the secrets of Wichita State’s devastating plane crash are still unfolding. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29993873/three-generations-later-secrets-wichita-state-devastating-plane-crash-unfolding
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Contract. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Liability. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liability
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Tort. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort
What did you think?
Anything you want to tell me about this lesson — what worked, what did not, what you would change. Anonymous: no name, email, or IP address is recorded.