Massachusetts Court Rules Parents of Student Can Proceed With Claims Against University Administrators for Daughter’s Suicide
 
October 6, 2005
 

In Shin v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, et al., a Massachusetts Superior Court judge found that the parents of Elizabeth Shin could proceed with their claims against two MIT administrators and four MIT medical professionals in a lawsuit over their daughter’s suicide. Most notable about this summary judgment decision was the Court’s finding that the Shins’ had presented sufficient evidence to try Elizabeth’s dormitory housemaster and the Associate Dean of Students, Counseling, and Support Services for negligence in her death. Both the housemaster and the dean each had a “special relationship” with Elizabeth, so they had a legal duty to prevent her suicide.

Elizabeth Shin committed suicide on April 10, 2000, while a resident in one of MIT’s dormitories. The day of Elizabeth’s suicide, a team of MIT deans and MIT mental health professionals, including the Associate Dean of Students, Counseling and Support Services and Elizabeth’s dormitory housemaster, met to discuss Elizabeth’s case. At the meeting, Elizabeth’s case was discussed, including her statement to two students that she intended to kill herself that day. However, while an appointment was made for Elizabeth at a treatment center the next day, and a voice message was left on Elizabeth’s answering machine, no other contact was made with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth received no personal attention that day, following the meeting, appears to have been a deciding factor to the Court. The Court referred to this meeting throughout the opinion, using it to find that the MIT administrators had a duty to Elizabeth.

Though the decision interprets Massachusetts law, the Court relied upon a U.S. District Court case in Virginia, Scheiszler v. Ferrum College, 236 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D. Va. 2002), to support the conclusion that school administrators are negligent when they have knowledge of a student’s attempt or intent to harm his or herself and fail to take adequate precautions. The Court acknowledged that the MIT administrators correctly asserted that, under Massachusetts law, they could not be held liable for another person’s suicide because they did not cause Elizabeth’s uncontrollable suicidal condition nor was Elizabeth in their physical custody while they had knowledge of her suicidal condition. Nevertheless, the Court reasoned that both the dean and the housemaster each had a special relationship with Elizabeth which required them to exercise reasonable care to protect her from harm. The administrators were well aware of Elizabeth’s mental problems from at least February 1999. Elizabeth’s housemaster had received numerous reports from students about Elizabeth’s destructive behavior, including the report that Elizabeth was planning to commit suicide on April 10, 2000. The dean had met with Elizabeth numerous times to discuss her mental health. Additionally, the dean attended weekly meetings between the deans and mental health professionals, including the meeting on April 10 where Elizabeth’s mental problems were discussed with other MIT medical professionals.

While the Massachusetts Superior Court’s decision allows the Shins to proceed to trial against the MIT administrators, given the highly factual context in which the decision was made and the administrators’ current motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, interlocutory appeal, it may have little effect on precedent. The decision does however, serve as a reminder to colleges and universities of the challenges present in administering to student mental health issues and a caution to have clearly established policies in place for dealing with student suicide threats.

For more information, e-mail Cynthia B. Ryan at cynthia.ryan@hklaw.com or by calling toll free, 1-888-688-8500.