make a presentation on CASE BRIEF (Whitlock v. Uni. Of Denver​)

CASE BRIEF (Whitlock v. Uni. Of Denver)

presentation

PARTIES – 1 point: Who are the parties in this case?

FACTS – 1 point: What are the facts of the case?

ISSUES – 2 points: What are the question(s) that the court has to decide?

HOLDINGS- 3 points: What does the court decide on each issue?

RATIONALE- 3 points:  What is the reason for the court’s decision on each issue?

A customer or patron who apparently has not paid for what he has received may be detained for
a reasonable time to investigate the circumstances, but upon payment of the demand, he has the
unqualified right to leave the premises without restraint, so far as the proprietor is concerned,
and it is false imprisonment for a private individual to detain one for an unreasonable time, or
under unreasonable circumstances, for the purpose of investigating a dispute over the payment
of a bill alleged to be owed by the person detained for cash services.
***
For these reasons, the judgment is reversed and final judgment entered for the defendant-appellant.
CASE QUESTIONS
1.
The court begins by saying what false imprisonment is not. What is the legal definition of false
imprisonment?
2.
What kinds of detention are permissible for a store to use in accosting those that may have been
shoplifting?
3.
Jody broke up with Jeremy and refused to talk to him. Jeremy saw Jody get into her car near the business
school and parked right behind her so she could not move. He then stood next to the driver’s window for
fifteen minutes, begging Jody to talk to him. She kept saying, “No, let me leave!” Has Jeremy committed
the tort of false imprisonment?
Negligence: Duty of Due Care
Whitlock v. University of Denver
744 P.2d 54 (Supreme Court of Colorado1987)
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. The injury rendered him a
quadriplegic. The trampoline was owned by the Beta Theta Pi fraternity (the Beta house) and was situated
on the front yard of the fraternity premises, located on the University campus. At the time of his injury,
Whitlock was twenty years old, attended the University of Denver, and was a member of the Beta house,
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
29
where he held the office of acting house manager. The property on which the Beta house was located was
leased to the local chapter house association of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity by the defendant University of
Denver.
Whitlock had extensive experience jumping on trampolines. He began using trampolines in junior high
school and continued to do so during his brief tenure as a cadet at the United States Military Academy at
West Point, where he learned to execute the one-and-three-quarters front flip. Whitlock testified that he
utilized the trampoline at West Point every other day for a period of two months. He began jumping on
the trampoline owned by the Beta house in September of 1977. Whitlock recounted that in the fall and
spring prior to the date of his injury, he jumped on the trampoline almost daily. He testified further that
prior to the date of his injury, he had successfully executed the one-and-three-quarters front flip between
seventy-five and one hundred times.
During the evening of June 18 and early morning of June 19, 1978, Whitlock attended a party at the Beta
house, where he drank beer, vodka and scotch until 2:00 a.m. Whitlock then retired and did not awaken
until 2:00 p.m. on June 19. He testified that he jumped on the trampoline between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00
p.m., and again at 7:00 p.m. At 10:00 p.m., the time of the injury, there again was a party in progress at
the Beta house, and Whitlock was using the trampoline with only the illumination from the windows of
the fraternity house, the outside light above the front door of the house, and two street lights in the area.
As Whitlock attempted to perform the one-and-three-quarters front flip, he landed on the back of his
head, causing his neck to break.
Whitlock brought suit against the manufacturer and seller of the trampoline, the University, the Beta
Theta Pi fraternity and its local chapter, and certain individuals in their capacities as representatives of
the Beta Theta Pi organizations. Whitlock reached settlements with all of the named defendants except
the University, so only the negligence action against the University proceeded to trial. The jury returned a
verdict in favor of Whitlock, assessing his total damages at $ 7,300,000. The jury attributed twenty-eight
percent of causal negligence to the conduct of Whitlock and seventy-two percent of causal negligence to
the conduct of the University. The trial court accordingly reduced the amount of the award against the
University to $ 5,256,000.
The University moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, a new trial. The
trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that as a matter of law,
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
30
no reasonable jury could have found that the University was more negligent than Whitlock, and that the
jury’s monetary award was the result of sympathy, passion or prejudice.
A panel of the court of appeals reversed…by a divided vote. Whitlock v. University of Denver, 712 P.2d
1072 (Colo. App. 1985). The court of appeals held that the University owed Whitlock a duty of due care to
remove the trampoline from the fraternity premises or to supervise its use.…The case was remanded to
the trial court with orders to reinstate the verdict and damages as determined by the jury. The University
then petitioned for certiorari review, and we granted that petition.
II.
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. [Citations] Therefore, if Whitlock’s judgment against the
University is to be upheld, it must first be determined that the University owed a duty of care to take
reasonable measures to protect him against the injury that he sustained.
Whether a particular defendant owes a legal duty to a particular plaintiff is a question of law. [Citations]
“The court determines, as a matter of law, the existence and scope of the duty—that is, whether the
plaintiff’s interest that has been infringed by the conduct of the defendant is entitled to legal protection.”
[Citations] In Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125 (Colo. 1986), we set forth several factors to
be considered in determining the existence of duty in a particular case:
Whether the law should impose a duty requires consideration of many factors including, for
example, the risk involved, the foreseeability and likelihood of injury as weighed against the
social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury or
harm, and the consequences of placing the burden upon the actor.
…A court’s conclusion that a duty does or does not exist is “an expression of the sum total of those
considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the plaintiff is [or is not] entitled to protection.”
…
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. In determining whether a defendant owes a duty to a particular plaintiff, the
law has long recognized a distinction between action and a failure to act—“that is to say, between active
misconduct working positive injury to others [misfeasance] and passive inaction or a failure to take steps
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
31
to protect them from harm [nonfeasance].” W. Keeton, § 56, at 373. Liability for nonfeasance was slow to
receive recognition in the law. “The reason for the distinction may be said to lie in the fact that by
‘misfeasance’ the defendant has created a new risk of harm to the plaintiff, while by ‘nonfeasance’ he has
at least made his situation no worse, and has merely failed to benefit him by interfering in his
affairs.” Id. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965) summarizes the law on this point as follows:
The fact that an actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another’s
aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.
Imposition of a duty in all such cases would simply not meet the test of fairness under contemporary
standards.
In nonfeasance cases the existence of a duty has been recognized only during the last century in situations
involving a limited group of special relationships between parties. Such special relationships are
predicated on “some definite relation between the parties, of such a character that social policy justifies
the imposition of a duty to act.” W. Keeton, § 56, at 374. Special relationships that have been recognized
by various courts for the purpose of imposition of a duty of care include common carrier/passenger,
innkeeper/guest, possessor of land/invited entrant, employer/employee, parent/child, and
hospital/patient.See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 A (1965); 3 Harper and James, § 18.6, at 722–
23. The authors of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 A, comment b (1965), state that “the law
appears…to be working slowly toward a recognition of the duty to aid or protect in any relation of
dependence or of mutual dependence.”
…
III.
The present case involves the alleged negligent failure to act, rather than negligent action. The plaintiff
does not complain of any affirmative action taken by the University, but asserts instead that the
University owed to Whitlock the duty to assure that the fraternity’s trampoline was used only under
supervised conditions comparable to those in a gymnasium class, or in the alternative to cause the
trampoline to be removed from the front lawn of the Beta house.…If such a duty is to be recognized, it
must be grounded on a special relationship between the University and Whitlock. According to the
evidence, there are only two possible sources of a special relationship out of which such a duty could arise
in this case: the status of Whitlock as a student at the University, and the lease between the University and
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
32
the fraternity of which Whitlock was a member. We first consider the adequacy of the student-university
relationship as a possible basis for imposing a duty on the University to control or prohibit the use of the
trampoline, and then examine the provisions of the lease for that same purpose.
A.
The student-university relationship has been scrutinized in several jurisdictions, and it is generally agreed
that a university is not an insurer of its students’ safety. [Citations] The relationship between a university
and its students has experienced important change over the years. At one time, college administrators and
faculties stood in loco parentis to their students, which created a special relationship “that imposed a duty
on the college to exercise control over student conduct and, reciprocally, gave the students certain rights
of protection by the college.” Bradshaw, 612 F.2d at 139. However, in modern times there has evolved a
gradual reapportionment of responsibilities from the universities to the students, and a corresponding
departure from the in loco parentis relationship. Id. at 139–40. Today, colleges and universities are
regarded as educational institutions rather than custodial ones. Beach, 726 P.2d at 419 (contrasting
colleges and universities with elementary and high schools).
…
…By imposing a duty on the University in this case, the University would be encouraged to exercise more
control over private student recreational choices, thereby effectively taking away much of the
responsibility recently recognized in students for making their own decisions with respect to private
entertainment and personal safety. Such an allocation of responsibility would “produce a repressive and
inhospitable environment, largely inconsistent with the objectives of a modern college
education.” Beach, 726 P.2d at 419.
The evidence demonstrates that only in limited instances has the University attempted to impose
regulations or restraints on the private recreational pursuits of its students, and the students have not
looked to the University to assure the safety of their recreational choices. Nothing in the University’s
student handbook, which contains certain regulations concerning student conduct, reflects an effort by
the University to control the risk-taking decisions of its students in their private recreation.…Indeed,
fraternity and sorority self-governance with minimal supervision appears to have been fostered by the
University.
…
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
33
Aside from advising the Beta house on one occasion to put the trampoline up when not in use, there is no
evidence that the University officials attempted to assert control over trampoline use by the fraternity
members. We conclude from this record that the University’s very limited actions concerning safety of
student recreation did not give Whitlock or the other members of campus fraternities or sororities any
reason to depend upon the University for evaluation of the safety of trampoline use.…Therefore, we
conclude that the student-university relationship is not a special relationship of the type giving rise to a
duty of the University to take reasonable measures to protect the members of fraternities and sororities
from risks of engaging in extra-curricular trampoline jumping.
The plaintiff asserts, however, that we should recognize a duty of the University to take affirmative action
to protect fraternity members because of the foreseeability of the injury, the extent of the risks involved in
trampoline use, the seriousness of potential injuries, and the University’s superior knowledge concerning
these matters. The argument in essence is that a duty should spring from the University’s natural interest
in the welfare and safety of its students, its superior knowledge of the nature and degree of risk involved
in trampoline use, and its knowledge of the use of trampolines on the University campus. The evidence
amply supports a conclusion that trampoline use involves risks of serious injuries and that the potential
for an injury such as that experienced by Whitlock was foreseeable. It shows further that prior injuries
resulting from trampoline accidents had been reported to campus security and to the student clinic, and
that University administrators were aware of the number and severity of trampoline injuries nationwide.
The record, however, also establishes through Whitlock’s own testimony that he was aware of the risk of
an accident and injury of the very nature that he experienced.…
We conclude that the relationship between the University and Whitlock was not one of dependence with
respect to the activities at issue here, and provides no basis for the recognition of a duty of the University
to take measures for protection of Whitlock against the injury that he suffered.
B.
We next examine the lease between the University and the fraternity to determine whether a special
relationship between the University and Whitlock can be predicated on that document. The lease was
executed in 1929, extends for a ninety-nine year term, and gives the fraternity the option to extend the
term for another ninety-nine years. The premises are to be occupied and used by the fraternity “as a
fraternity house, clubhouse, dormitory and boarding house, and generally for religious, educational, social
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
34
and fraternal purposes.” Such occupation is to be “under control of the tenant.” (emphasis added) The
annual rental at all times relevant to this case appears from the record to be one dollar. The University has
the obligation to maintain the grounds and make necessary repairs to the building, and the fraternity is to
bear the cost of such maintenance and repair.
…
We conclude that the lease, and the University’s actions pursuant to its rights under the lease, provide no
basis of dependence by the fraternity members upon which a special relationship can be found to exist
between the University and the fraternity members that would give rise to a duty upon the University to
take affirmative action to assure that recreational equipment such as a trampoline is not used under
unsafe conditions.
IV.
Considering all of the factors presented, we are persuaded that under the facts of this case the University
of Denver had no duty to Whitlock to eliminate the private use of trampolines on its campus or to
supervise that use. There exists no special relationship between the parties that justifies placing a duty
upon the University to protect Whitlock from the well-known dangers of using a trampoline. Here, a
conclusion that a special relationship existed between Whitlock and the University sufficient to warrant
the imposition of liability for nonfeasance would directly contravene the competing social policy of
fostering an educational environment of student autonomy and independence.
We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return this case to that court with directions to
remand it to the trial court for dismissal of Whitlock’s complaint against the University.
CASE QUESTIONS
1.
How are comparative negligence numbers calculated by the trial court? How can the jury say that the
university is 72 percent negligent and that Whitlock is 28 percent negligent?
2.
Why is this not an assumption of risk case?
3.
Is there any evidence that Whitlock was contributorily negligent? If not, why would the court engage in
comparative negligence calculations?
Negligence: Proximate Cause
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books
Saylor.org
35