A.M. v. Miami Univ.
2017 Ohio 8586
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2011 A.C., a Miami University student, sexually assaulted A.M. at A.C.’s private, off‑campus residence; A.C. was later dismissed by Miami following a hearing.
- A.M. sued Miami in the Court of Claims (refiling after procedural transfers); her complaint alleged negligence for failing to investigate prior allegations against A.C. (2008 alleged assault; 2009 alleged voyeurism) and for not enforcing Miami’s code, creating a foreseeable risk.
- Miami moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no legal duty to protect A.M. for off‑campus conduct and (2) statute of limitations; Miami submitted affidavits showing the assault location was off‑campus and not under university control.
- The Court of Claims struck A.M.’s untimely opposition briefs/exhibits, denied leave to supplement, and granted summary judgment for Miami, holding no special relationship or duty existed to impose negligence liability for the off‑campus assault.
- The court also alternatively found A.C.’s criminal act was not sufficiently foreseeable from prior unadjudicated allegations; A.M. appealed, raising (1) error in granting summary judgment and (2) error in striking her opposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did court abuse discretion in striking A.M.’s untimely opposition and denying supplementation? | A.M.: late filing excusable; exhibits confidential; should be considered. | Miami: filings untimely; no Civ.R.56(F) motion; local rules control; prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; court properly struck untimely filings and denial of leave was appropriate. |
| Whether Miami owed a legal duty to protect A.M. from a third‑party sexual assault that occurred off campus? | A.M.: university–student relationship, code of conduct covering off‑campus conduct, Title IX obligations, and Miami’s alleged failure to enforce policies created a duty. | Miami: no special relationship or statutory duty to control off‑campus student conduct; premises‑based duties do not extend to locations outside university possession/control. | No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment for Miami affirmed (no duty, so negligence fails). |
| If a special relationship exists, was the assault foreseeable so as to impose liability? | A.M.: prior allegations in 2008/2009 made A.C.’s later assault foreseeable. | Miami: prior allegations were unadjudicated and not sufficiently predictive; criminal acts are largely unpredictable. | Court (alternative): prior unproven allegations did not make the criminal act sufficiently foreseeable to impose liability. |
| Can Title IX or university disciplinary policies create a common‑law negligence duty? | A.M.: Title IX and university policies impose obligations that should translate into tort duties. | Miami: Title IX remedies are distinct; no authority establishes Title IX or internal policies create a separate state tort duty for off‑campus assaults. | Court: declined to convert Title IX or policy obligations into a common‑law negligence duty on these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 130 (Ohio 1995) (premises‑owner duty to invitees limited to premises in owner’s possession/control)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Edn., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (Title IX private damages action for student‑on‑student harassment requires deliberate indifference by funding recipient)