Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialleaseduty of care

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceduty of care

Related Cases

University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 42 Ed. Law Rep. 950

Facts

On June 19, 1978, Oscar Whitlock, a student and acting house manager of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity, suffered a paralyzing injury while using a trampoline owned by the fraternity on the front lawn of their leased house. Whitlock had extensive experience with trampolines and had been drinking at a party prior to the accident. He attempted a front flip on the trampoline but landed on his head, resulting in quadriplegia. Whitlock sued multiple parties, including the University, which was the only defendant that proceeded to trial after settlements were reached with others. The jury found the University 72% negligent and awarded Whitlock $7,300,000, which was later reduced to $5,256,000 by the trial court.

On June 19, 1978, at approximately 10:00 p.m., plaintiff Oscar Whitlock suffered a paralyzing injury while attempting to complete a one-and-three-quarters front flip on a trampoline.

Issue

Did the University of Denver owe a duty of care to Oscar Whitlock to take reasonable measures to protect him against injuries resulting from his use of a trampoline owned by the fraternity?

Whether a particular defendant owes a legal duty to a particular plaintiff is a question of law.

Rule

A negligence claim must fail if based on circumstances for which the law imposes no duty of care upon the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff. The existence of a duty is determined by considering various factors, including the relationship between the parties and the foreseeability of harm.

A negligence claim must fail if based on circumstances for which the law imposes no duty of care upon the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff.

Analysis

The court determined that the University did not owe a duty to Whitlock because the relationship between them did not create a special duty of care. The court noted that the University was not an insurer of student safety and that the student-university relationship had evolved to one where students are expected to take responsibility for their own safety. Additionally, the court found that the University had not exerted sufficient control over the fraternity's activities to establish a duty to supervise the use of the trampoline.

We believe that the fact that the University is charged with negligent failure to act rather than negligent affirmative action is a critical factor that strongly militates against imposition of a duty on the University under the facts of this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that the University of Denver had no duty to protect Whitlock from the risks associated with trampoline use and directed the case to be remanded for dismissal of Whitlock's complaint against the University.

We conclude that the University of Denver had no duty to Whitlock to eliminate the private use of trampolines on its campus or to supervise that use.

Who won?

The University of Denver prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that it did not owe a duty of care to Whitlock regarding the trampoline accident, emphasizing the lack of a special relationship that would impose such a duty.

The University then petitioned for certiorari review, and we granted that petition.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587

Robinson v. LeCorps, 83 S.W.3d 718

Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59, 7 L.R.A. 618

Horner v. Sani-Top, Inc., 143 Idaho 230, 141 P.3d 1099

Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp., 259 Or. 583, 488 P.2d 436