Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ZELON, J.
• Citation: Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 29 Cal.App.5th 890, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 (Cal. App. 2018)
• Decision Date: 03 December 2018
• Docket Number: B259424
• Parties: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. Katherine Rosen, Real Party in Interest.

29 Cal.App.5th 890

240 Cal.Rptr.3d 675

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners,

v.SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent.

Katherine Rosen, Real Party in Interest.

B259424

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

Filed December 3, 2018

Maranga Morgenstern, Kenneth A. Maranga, Paul A. Elkort, Morgan A. Metzger and Dennis Newitt, Woodland Hills; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Feris M. Greenberger, Los Angeles; University of California Office of the General Counsel, Charles F. Robinson, Karen J. Petrulakis and Normal J. Hamill ; University of California, Los Angeles and Kevin S. Reed for Petitioners.

Reed Smith, Paul D. Fogel and Dennis Peter Maio, San Francisco, for The California Community Colleges, California Institute of Technology, California State University, Chapman University, Claremont McKenna College, Pepperdine University, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Stanford University and The University of Southern California, as amici curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Munger, Tolles & Olson, Brad S. Phillips and Grant Davis-Denny, Los Angeles, for JED Foundation, American College Counseling Association and NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, as amici curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Alan Charles Dell’Ario, Napa; Panish, Shea & Boyle, Brian Panish and Deborah S. Chang, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest.

The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of California, as amicus curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

ZELON, J.

Katherine Rosen, a student at the University of California at Los Angeles, was severely injured after being attacked by another student who had been receiving treatment for mental illness. Rosen filed a negligence action alleging that university personnel failed to take reasonable measures to protect her from the perpetrator’s foreseeable violent conduct. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that postsecondary schools do not have a duty to protect their students from third-party misconduct. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the defendants owed Rosen a duty of care, and that triable issues of fact existed whether they had breached that duty.

The defendants challenged the order through a petition for writ of mandate. A divided panel of this court granted the petition based on a finding of no duty. In Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656 ( Regents ), the Supreme Court reversed our decision, holding that colleges and universities have a "duty to use reasonable care to protect their students from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities." ( Id . at p. 627, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656.) The Court remanded the case to resolve several issues the majority did not address in our initial opinion.

We now deny defendants’ petition for writ of mandate, except with respect to defendant Nicole Green, concluding that: (1) the standard of care governing a university’s duty to protect its students from foreseeable acts of violence is the ordinary reasonable person standard; (2) triable issues of fact exist whether the defendants breached their duty of care to Rosen; and (3) although Civil Code section 43.92 precludes liability against defendant Nicole Green, the remaining defendants are not statutorily immune from suit.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Summary of the Incident and Rosen’s Claim

Damon Thompson enrolled in the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in the fall of 2008.¹ Shortly after arriving on campus, he began to experience auditory hallucinations and paranoid thinking. Thompson informed multiple administrators, professors, teaching assistants and dorm personnel that other students in his classroom and dormitory were making offensive remarks to him, and trying to disrupt his work. In February of 2009, Thompson was transported to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation after claiming that he had heard other students in his dormitory plotting to shoot him. He was diagnosed with possible schizophrenia, and began receiving mental treatment through the university.

Over the next several months, university personnel monitored Thompson, who continued to accuse other students of insulting him and to engage in other erratic behavior, which included repeatedly shoving a student for making too much noise. Immediately after the fall semester began in 2009, Thompson complained to his chemistry professor and teaching assistant that other students in his chemistry laboratory were calling him stupid. The professor informed school administrators of Thompson’s behavior, and requested advice on how to respond. On October 8, 2009, Thompson was working in the chemistry laboratory when he suddenly attacked fellow student Katherine Rosen with a kitchen knife. Rosen survived the attack, but sustained serious, life-threatening injuries.

Rosen filed a tort action against the Regents of the University of California and several UCLA employees who had knowledge of Thompson’s mental condition.² The complaint alleged a single cause of action for negligence asserting that universities and their employees have a duty to protect their students from foreseeable acts of violence. The complaint further alleged defendants had breached their duty of care because they knew of Thompson’s "dangerous and violent propensities," but failed to adopt reasonable measures to protect Rosen.

B. Procedural History

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and petition for writ of mandate

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Rosen’s claim failed for three reasons. First, they argued that colleges and universities do not have a duty to protect their students from criminal conduct perpetrated by other students. Second, defendants contended that even if universities have such a duty, the undisputed evidence showed UCLA and its personnel had acted reasonably in addressing the threat Thompson posed to other students, and that his attack was not a foreseeable event. Third, defendants argued they were statutorily immune from Rosen’s claim under Government Code sections 856 and 820.2, and Civil Code section 43.92.

In her opposition, Rosen argued that colleges and universities have a special relationship with their students that gives rise to a duty to protect them from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom.³ Rosen further asserted that there were triable issues of fact whether the defendants had breached this duty. In support, Rosen provided declarations from two expert witnesses stating that the university should have conducted a formal threat assessment on Thompson, and required that he participate in meaningful psychiatric treatment as a condition of his continued attendance. The experts further concluded that the university’s failure to undertake such precautions violated UCLA’s "own policies and procedures and the standard applicable to all universities." Finally, Rosen argued that none of the statutes the defendants had identified in their motion immunized them from her claim.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that universities owe a duty to protect their students under the special relationship doctrine, and that the defendants were not immune from suit. The court also found that triable issues of fact existed as to whether defendants had breached their duty to protect Rosen.

The defendants challenged the trial court’s order in a petition for writ of mandate. A divided panel of this court granted the petition, the majority holding that universities do not have a duty to warn or protect students from third-party criminal conduct.⁴ Having concluded that the university did not have a duty to protect Rosen, the majority did not address whether the school and its employees were statutorily immune under Government Code section 856 and 820.2, nor did it address whether there was a disputed issue of material fact regarding breach of the duty.

The dissent, however, would have found colleges and universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violent pursuant to the special-relationship doctrine. The dissent additionally concluded that the defendants were not immune from suit,⁵ and that there were triable issues of fact whether the university had breached its duty of care.

2. Regents of University of California v. Superior Court

In Regents of University of California v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.5th 607, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656, the Supreme Court held that "[colleges] and universities^{[6 ]} have a special relationship with their students" ( id . at p. 614, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656 ), and "a duty to use reasonable care to protect [them] from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities."⁷ ( Id . at p. 627, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656.) The Court concluded that the special relationship arose from "the unique features of the college environment" ( id . at p. 624, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656 ), explaining: "While [a university’s] primary function is to foster intellectual development through an academic curriculum, the institution is involved in all aspects of student life. Through its providing of food, housing, security, and a range of extracurricular activities the modern university provides a setting in which every aspect of student life is, to some degree, university guided.’ [Citation.]" ( Id . at p. 625, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656.) As a result of these attributes, "colleges have a superior ability to provide ... safety with respect to activities they sponsor or facilities they control." ( Ibid . )

The Court further concluded, however, that "many aspects of a modern college student’s life are, quite properly, beyond the institution’s control," including "how students behave off campus, or in their social activities unrelated to school." ( Regents, supra , 4 Cal.5th...