Ohio Court Holds University Liable for Student’s Rape in a Dormitory Shower
 
February 15, 2006
 

On the evening of February 28, 1998, as a female university student was preparing to take a shower in the women’s bathroom of a co-ed dorm on the twelfth floor of a dormitory, an unknown male entered the shower and raped her. That student filed suit against the University of Cincinnati, alleging the school breached its duty of care to her. After trial, the Ohio Court of Claims entered judgment in favor of the University. On appeal, however, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the Ohio Court of Claims held the University breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s case revolved around two primary assertions: (1) the University was negligent for failing to provide adequate security to prevent unauthorized entrance into the building; and (2) the University was negligent for placing neither locks nor latches on the dormitory’s shower doors.

As for the first assertion, the University argued that because the perpetrator was never apprehended, the plaintiff could not prove she was attacked by someone who had gained unauthorized entry due to lax security. Ultimately, however, the Court found the University’s argument convincing and found that the plaintiff did not prove her assailant had entered the building due to lax security.

The plaintiff was far more successful in her second assertion that the University was negligent for failing to provide locks or latches on the shower doors. Setting up the analysis for the negligence claim, the Court first determined the duty owed to the plaintiff was that of an invitee, meaning that it was the University’s duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its invitees to ensure the premises are in a reasonably safe condition for use in a manner consistent with the purpose of the invitation (i.e., residing in the dorm). More specifically, the University had the duty to protect the plaintiff from unreasonable risks of physical harm about which the University knew, or had reason to know.

In response, the University presented testimony that the ground floor doors were locked; visitors and residents were instructed to stop at the front desk and present identification when entering the building; all other exterior doors were locked; and students received various printed materials about public safety measures. Additionally, these witnesses acknowledged they were aware of successful attempts to thwart security measures (e.g., residents leaving doors propped open so their friends could enter) and that various property crimes and assaults had occurred in the three years prior to the plaintiff’s rape.

After examining the precautions about which the University’s witnesses testified, it became clear the University knew about certain risks and had reason to know about others. The Court noted that while there is usually no duty to protect people from third party assailants, that duty may be imposed where there is a “special relationship” such as the one created between businesses (like the University) and invitees (like the plaintiff). In this case, the University demonstrated that it acknowledged its intent to protect students from third parties by the ample evidence it presented to demonstrate they had met their duty of care. Moreover, the court noted that students reasonably relied on the University to put in place security systems to keep them safe. Additionally, the Court reasoned that students living in a dorm are not in a position to alter the premises to increase security measures. Further, testimony established locks were placed on dorm rooms, other bathrooms and even other showers on campus. Finally, the Court noted that without the means to lock a shower door in a campus restroom, a student is vulnerable to unintentional and embarrassing exposure as well as violent attack.

Examining the final elements of the plaintiff’s claim, having established the University’s duty of reasonable care, the Court went on to find, using a totality of the circumstances test, that the criminal act was foreseeable, primarily because of the testimony provided by the University about the many precautions it took and the crime education it afforded the students. Additionally, the Court found the University was in control of the residential facility and had an obligation to provide security devices which were known to exist, were reasonably available and which could diminish the possibility of this foreseeable assault. Since the University failed to provide these devices, it breached its duty of care, which proximately caused the plaintiff’s rape.

This case puts universities and other schools providing residential dorms on notice that they may stand in a special relationship with the students living on their campus. While the Court did not indicate at what point security devices would be considered not “reasonably available” (and perhaps, prohibitively costly) it appears that the Court found that since some restrooms and showers on campus had locks, it certainly appeared locks were reasonably available. Consequently, universities and other residential schools should examine security policies to make sure they are both thorough and uniform. Additionally, when a school becomes aware of a security breach, it is best to react swiftly and decisively in taking reasonable steps to prevent future occurrences of security infractions.

For more information, e-mail Cheryl A. Priest at cheryl.priest@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.