Romero, Jesus 02/18/2015

Gross v. Family Services Agency, Inc., 716 So.2d 337 (1998)

University liability in off campus internship
Summary
In this case, a 23-year old graduate student was assaulted in the parking lot one evening
as she was leaving her internship site. She was attending Nova Southeastern University to earn
her doctorate in psychology. As part of the curriculum students must complete an 11-month
practicum from a list of approved sites. Students have the opportunity to select six sites and the
school ultimately makes the decision of where students are placed. The student was placed at
Family Services Agency despite prior knowledge that there had been a number of criminal
incidents that had occurred at or near the site. The student brought charges against both Family
Services Agency (FSA) and Nova Southeastern University. While the student settled with FSA,
the trial court granted Nova summary judgment claiming that it had no duty. However, an
appeals court found that there existed a "special relationship" between the university and the
student making the fact that the university failed to warn the student of the dangers at the
internship a negligent action.
Case Law/Regulations/Statutes
1. Shurben v. Dollar Rent-A-Car, 676 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1996)
2. Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), Section 302B
3. Silvers v. Associated Technical Institute, Inc., No. 934253, 1994 WL 879600
(Mass.Super. Oct. 12, 1994)
4. Rinsky v. Trustees of Boston University, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136876 (D. Mass.
December 27, 2010)
Legal Issues
1. "Special relationship": The court recognized that the relationship was between a student
who pays for services and the university that provides the services. In this case, the
university assigned the student to one of its mandatory and approved internship sites.
Therefore, Nova had a duty to use reasonable care in providing educational services and
programs to its students.
2. Negligence/Forseeability: The university knew that there had been a number of other
criminal incidents which had occurred at or near the internship site parking lot. However,
it failed to warn the student that the site was "unreasonably dangerous and presented an
unreasonable risk of harm". Despite the fact that the crime was committed by a third
party, the risk of harm was forseeable making the university's actions negligent.
Implications
This case illustrates how an institution can be held liable for injuries that a student
sustains off-campus. If the court finds that there exists a "special relationship" between the
institution and student then the university has a duty to warn the student of possible harm.
Failure to do this may be enough for a court to find negligence against the institution. It is
therefore important for institutions to do their research when placing students at internship sites
off-campus or even sending students to volunteer at an off-campus site. The institution needs to
decide if the off-campus site is safe enough to assign students to and warn them if there is any
foreseeable harm.