ROTHBARD v. COLGATE UNIVERSITY, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Jason Rothbard, a sophomore and member of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity at Colgate University, sustained serious injuries after falling from the second floor of the fraternity house. The fall occurred at approximately 5:30 A.M. from a window centered over the curved portico above the fraternity house entrance. There were no witnesses, and plaintiff had no recollection of the incident. His blood alcohol level upon hospital admission was 0.18%. Plaintiff and his father filed suit seeking damages for these injuries against Colgate University, the local fraternity chapter, the national fraternity, and the alumni association that owned the fraternity house.

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Colgate University and the local fraternity chapter, and partially granted summary judgment to the alumni association (the owner of the fraternity house), dismissing claims except those alleging negligence in maintaining a dangerous condition in plaintiff’s room. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal as to the university and the partial dismissal as to the house owner. The owner cross-appealed seeking full dismissal of the complaint.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Colgate University owed a legal duty to supervise or control the conduct of its students in fraternity houses, including preventing plaintiff from engaging in prohibited conduct such as accessing roofs and porticos.
Whether the university breached any such duty by failing to enforce its student handbook rules prohibiting access to roofs and porticos and underage alcohol consumption.
Whether the owner of the fraternity house had a duty to supervise plaintiff’s conduct or to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, particularly regarding the absence of window safety stops in plaintiff’s room.
Whether the absence of window safety stops constituted a dangerous condition and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, precluding summary judgment for the owner.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

The university breached a duty to control or supervise student conduct in fraternity houses by failing to enforce rules in the student handbook, including the prohibition on accessing roofs and porticos.
The university voluntarily assumed this duty by asserting authority over student conduct in the handbook.
The university was negligent in failing to install safety stops on the window in plaintiff’s room to prevent falls.
The owner of the fraternity house was negligent in failing to prevent plaintiff from engaging in prohibited conduct and in maintaining a dangerous condition by not installing window safety stops.

Defendants' Arguments

Colgate University owed no legal duty to shield students from their own dangerous conduct or to supervise them in fraternity houses.
The university’s handbook provisions prohibiting certain conduct did not create a voluntary assumption of duty to supervise or control students.
The owner of the fraternity house owed a duty to maintain the premises safely but was not required to supervise adult students’ conduct.
The absence of window safety stops did not constitute a dangerous condition because fire safety regulations limited window modifications, and the owner’s architect supported this position.
The owner argued that the lack of eyewitnesses and plaintiff’s memory loss precluded proving proximate cause, justifying summary judgment on that basis.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 190	Colleges generally have no legal duty to shield students from dangerous activities of other students.	Supported the court’s conclusion that the university owed no duty to supervise or control plaintiff’s conduct.
Talbot v New York Inst. of Tech., 225 AD2d 611	Colleges do not owe a duty to protect students from their own dangerous conduct.	Reinforced the absence of a duty to supervise plaintiff’s risky behavior.
Hores v Sargent, 230 AD2d 712	Duty may arise where a college encourages and supervises an activity.	Distinguished because the university prohibited the conduct and did not encourage or supervise it.
Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241	Landowners owe a duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition considering all circumstances.	Established the standard for the owner of the fraternity house’s duty to maintain the premises safely.
Yahudah v Metro N. Riverview House, 129 AD2d 429	Whether a condition is dangerous and breaches a landowner’s duty is a question of fact for the jury.	Supported denial of summary judgment on the dangerous condition claim against the house owner.
Taft v Sports Page Shop, 226 AD2d 974, 976	On summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate merit of defense with evidentiary proof rather than pointing to gaps in opponent’s proof.	Rejected owner’s argument that plaintiff’s lack of eyewitness or memory defeated proximate cause at summary judgment.
Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562	Movant bears initial burden to produce admissible evidence supporting summary judgment.	Applied to require owner to prove no dangerous condition or proximate cause, which it failed to do.
Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 AD2d 614, 615	Summary judgment cannot be granted based solely on gaps in the opponent’s proof.	Supported denial of summary judgment on proximate cause despite plaintiff’s evidentiary gaps.
Benjamin v Desai, 228 AD2d 764	Standards for amendment of pleadings or bills of particulars.	Rejected owner’s argument against plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend bill of particulars.
Lasky v Talandis, 209 AD2d 841, n	Referenced in relation to underage drinking claims.	Noted plaintiffs abandoned underage drinking claim on appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the university’s alleged duty to supervise student conduct in fraternity houses, focusing on whether the university voluntarily assumed such a duty by promulgating rules in the student handbook. It concluded that colleges generally owe no duty to shield students from their own dangerous conduct and that the university did not encourage or supervise the prohibited conduct but expressly forbade it. Therefore, the university did not owe a duty to supervise plaintiff or prevent him from engaging in risky behavior, including accessing roofs or porticos.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the university should have installed window safety stops as a means of supervising conduct, noting the absence of any claim that the university was responsible for a dangerous condition in plaintiff’s room as a possessor of the premises.

Regarding the owner of the fraternity house, the court recognized the owner’s duty as a landowner to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The owner’s architect’s affidavit opined no dangerous condition existed due to fire safety constraints on window modifications. However, plaintiffs submitted contrary expert evidence indicating window stops could have been installed without violating safety codes and that the lack of such stops, combined with evidence of frequent use of the portico and insufficient habitable space, raised a factual issue. Therefore, the question of whether the owner breached its duty by failing to maintain a safe condition was properly left to a jury.

The owner’s argument for summary judgment on proximate cause was rejected because the owner, as movant, failed to meet its initial burden of proof by relying solely on plaintiff’s evidentiary gaps. The court distinguished the summary judgment standard from the trial burden of proof and held that the absence of eyewitnesses or plaintiff’s memory loss did not justify dismissal at this stage.

The court also found the owner’s argument opposing plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend the bill of particulars to be without merit.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Colgate University and partially granting summary judgment to the owner of the fraternity house, except as to claims alleging negligence in maintaining a dangerous condition related to the absence of window safety stops.

The effect of this decision is that the university is not liable for injuries resulting from students’ failure to comply with its handbook rules or for failing to supervise adult students’ conduct in fraternity houses. The owner of the fraternity house remains potentially liable for maintaining a dangerous condition, and this issue must be resolved by a jury. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies existing principles regarding duties of colleges and landowners in the context of student injuries on campus-related premises.

Show full summary ...

RICHARD ROTHBARD, as Parent and Guardian of JASON ROTHBARD, an Infant, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. COLGATE UNIVERSITY et al., Respondents, and ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE COLGATE CHAPTER, BETA THETA OF BETA THETA PI, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Plaintiff Jason Rothbard (hereinafter plaintiff) sustained serious injuries when he fell from the second floor of defendant Beta Theta Pi fraternity house at defendant Colgate University in the Village of Hamilton, Madison County. At the time of his fall, plaintiff was a sophomore at the university and a member of the fraternity. Plaintiffs room at the fraternity house had a window which was centered over the curved portico above the front entrance to the fraternity house. There were no witnesses to plaintiffs fall, which occurred at approximately 5:30 A.M., and plaintiff has no memory of the fall. Plaintiff was found lying on the ground near the entrance to the fraternity house, unconscious and bleeding profusely. Upon plaintiffs admission to the hospital, his blood alcohol level was measured at 0.18%.

In this action, plaintiff and his father seek to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in his fall. In addition to the university, three entities related to the particular fraternity were named as defendants: the local chapter of the fraternity, the national fraternity and the alumni organization that owned the fraternity house. After issue was joined, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims. Plaintiffs cross-moved for certain relief, including permission to amend their bill of particulars to certain defendants. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the university and the local chapter of the fraternity, and the complaint was also apparently dismissed as to the national fraternity. The owner of the fraternity house was granted summary judgment except insofar as plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the owner was negligent in maintaining a defective or dangerous condition in plaintiffs room at the fraternity house. Supreme Court also granted plaintiffs' cross motion. Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of the complaint as against the university and the partial dismissal of the complaint as to the owner of the fraternity house. Plaintiffs do not contest the dismissal of the complaint as against the local chapter or the national fraternity. The owner of the fraternity house cross-appeals, claiming that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.

As to the university's motion for summary judgment, it is clear from the affidavit in opposition to the motion that plaintiffs' negligence claim against the university is based upon allegations that the university breached its duty to control or supervise the conduct or behavior of students in fraternity houses, including plaintiff. According to plaintiffs, the university assumed the duty when, in the student handbook, it asserted the authority to control the behavior of students in fraternity houses. In particular, plaintiffs point to provisions of the handbook which provide that all roofs and porticos are "off limits" for all students and that no one under the age of 21 shall be served or consume alcohol. Plaintiffs contend that the university knew or should have known that both provisions were routinely violated by students at fraternity houses. Plaintiffs claim that the university's failure to enforce its own rules should result in the imposition of liability for the injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell from a portico. We find no merit in plaintiffs' claim.

On this appeal, plaintiffs have focused on the university's failure to enforce the rule which declares roofs and porticos "off limits"; they have apparently abandoned their claim regarding underage drinking ( see, Lasky v Talandis, 209 AD2d 841, n).

"[C]olleges today in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students" ( Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 190). A fortiori, colleges today in general have no legal duty to shield their students from their own dangerous activity which creates a risk of harm to themselves ( see, Talbot v New York Inst, of Tech., 225 AD2d 611). This is not a case where the university encouraged its students to participate in an activity and took affirmative steps to supervise the activity ( see, Hores v Sargent, 230 AD2d 712). To the contrary, the university expressly provided in its student handbook that certain conduct by its students was prohibited. We reject plaintiffs' contention that in so doing the university voluntarily assumed the duty to take affirmative steps to supervise plaintiff and prevent him from engaging in the prohibited activity. At the time of his injury, plaintiff was not a young child in need of constant and close supervision; he was an adult, responsible for his own conduct.

Plaintiffs refer to the absence of safety stops on the window in plaintiffs room as a basis for imposing liability on the university. They do so in the context of their claim that the university was obligated to control or supervise plaintiffs conduct. In other words, they claim that the university should have installed stops on the window in plaintiffs room as a means of preventing him from engaging in the prohibited activity. Absent from plaintiffs' affidavit in opposition to the university's motion is any claim of a dangerous condition in plaintiffs room for which the university was responsible as a party in possession and control of the premises. Having concluded that the university did not owe plaintiff the duty to supervise or control his conduct and prevent him from engaging in the particular activity that caused his injury, which is the only duty claimed to have been breached, we affirm Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint against the university.

Plaintiffs also contend that the owner of the fraternity house is liable for failing to prevent plaintiff from engaging in the prohibited conduct. We see no basis to impose upon the owner of the fraternity house the legal duty to affirmatively supervise plaintiff, an adult, and prevent him from engaging in conduct that creates a risk of harm to himself. Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court correctly granted partial summary judgment to the owner of the fraternity house.

As to the cross appeal, the owner of the fraternity house owed the duty, as a landowner, to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances ( see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the owner of the fraternity house submitted the affidavit of an architect who opined that there was no dangerous condition in plaintiffs room and explained the basis for his opinion, including the conclusion that the opening size of the window could not be restricted due to fire safety requirements. Plaintiffs submitted evidence that the owner knew or should have known of the fraternity members' frequent use of the portico and the danger inherent in such use. Plaintiffs also submitted the affidavit of an architect who opined that window safety stops could have been used without violating any fire or life safety requirements, and that such stops should have been used to restrict access to the portico. The architect also concluded that plaintiffs room did not have sufficient habitable space for plaintiff and his roommate, and there is evidence in the record that plaintiff may have been using the portico as a storage area. Based upon the evidence in the record, we conclude that the question of whether the absence of window safety stops was a breach of the owner's duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances is one of fact for a jury to resolve ( see, Yahudah v Metro N. Riverview House, 129 AD2d 429).

The owner of the fraternity house also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the proximate cause issue. According to the owner, the absence of an eyewitness to the fall and plaintiff's inability to remember the fall will prevent plaintiffs from meeting their burden of establishing that the owner's alleged breach of its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The owner's argument confuses plaintiffs' burden at trial with the burden of the respective parties on a motion for summary judgment ( see, Taft v Sports Page Shop, 226 AD2d 974, 976). The owner, as the proponent of the summary judgment motion, bore the initial burden to demonstrate the merit of its defense by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form ( see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The burden is not met by pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof ( see, Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 AD2d 614, 615), which is all the owner has done on the proximate cause issue in this case. Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the owner of the fraternity house insofar as plaintiffs' complaint is based upon allegations that the owner failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The owner's remaining argument concerning the amendment to plaintiffs' bill of particulars is meritless ( see, Benjamin v Desai, 228 AD2d 764).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ROTHBARD v. COLGATE UNIVERSITY