Florida Appellate Court Holds – Schools May Be Liable for Foreseeable Dangers Located Beyond Immediate Campus Property
 
December 6, 2006
 
Jonathan E. "Jon" O'Connell- Northern Virginia

In Almarante v. Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a school’s decision to place its dormitories on both sides of a highway, which effectively required its students to cross a section of that highway in order to utilize various dormitory facilities, “foreseeably created a greater zone of danger for its students.” The Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale (AIFL) constructed its dormitories on both sides of South Federal Highway, with a dormitory, student cafeteria, bus stop and mail center on the west side, and additional dormitory facilities on the east side. The plaintiff, an AIFL student, filed suit after she was severely injured by a motorcycle while attempting to return to her dorm room from the west side of Federal Highway. AIFL filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that there was “no legal duty … under Florida Law to provide a reasonably safe passage across a public highway not owned, maintained, or controlled by [AIFL].” The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed.

In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the school’s planning decision to build portions of its student housing on both sides of a busy highway created a “greater zone of danger for its students from injuries while crossing.” In reaching its decision, the court observed that the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that prior to the incident giving rise to her injuries, there had been two accidents involving pedestrians on the section of the highway located between AIFL’s dormitories. Additionally, according to the plaintiff, school officials had previously requested that the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) install appropriate pedestrian safety devices on the highway, to which the DOT responded that it was AIFL’s responsibility to conduct a traffic study before DOT would install a traffic signal. Ultimately, the court determined that “[a] landowner’s conduct can give rise to a zone of risk extending beyond the physical boundaries of his property when harm reaching outside those boundaries is foreseeable,” and thus, allowed the plaintiff to proceed with her claim.

Presumably, the appellate court’s reasoning would apply to other dangers beyond traffic hazards. Educational institutions should be aware of potential liabilities that may arise from planning and construction decisions which increase the possibility of injuries to students.

For more information, e-mail Jonathan E. O’Connell at jonathan.oconnell@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.