WILLIAMS V. UTICA COLLEGE OF SYRACUSE UNIV. 453 F.3d 112 (2nd Cir. 2006) CASE BRIEF

WILLIAMS V. UTICA COLLEGE OF SYRACUSE UNIV.

453 F.3d 112 (2nd Cir. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Williams (P) challenged a grant of summary judgment in P's negligence actions against Utica (D) after she was assaulted in her dormitory room by an unidentified assailant.

FACTS: During her sophomore year, P shared a room on the second floor of North Hall, where she and her roommate were assaulted by a masked, unknown attacker. They had returned to their dorm room and began to prepare lunch, leaving their door slightly ajar. A male entered the room and locked the door behind him; he had a gun. The attacker threatened P by pressing a knife against her neck. After forcing Williams to undress and kiss her roommate, he fondled and physically rubbed up against both roommates, never removing his clothes or mask. He left approximately thirty minutes after he arrived, having bound his victims' wrists to a bed with duct tape. D had in place a security policy requiring, with one exception, that all outer doors to its five residential halls be locked 24 hours a day. During office hours, a 'breezeway' entrance remained open allowing students to enter the Hall from the open quadrangle created by the four other student dormitories. This entrance was supposed to be monitored by work-study students. D could not confirm that anyone manned this post on the day of the assault. Ps had not seen anyone manning it either. The College Student Handbook had a reasonable policy for security and safety but it was known that students reportedly held and even propped open doors to the residence halls so that people could enter without registering. P sued D in negligence. The District Court granted summary judgment for D. It cited the low history of violent crime on campus, thus the type of attack P suffered was not foreseeable and thus there was no duty. Also, because there was no proof that the attacker was an 'intruder' from outside the school, P could not establish that the alleged negligence was the cause of the assailant's presence in the dorm or the subsequent attack. The District Court found that 'the security measures maintained by D fulfilled its security obligations as a matter of law. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner