Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents
343 P.3d 931
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Morgan Boisson, a University of Arizona undergraduate in a Fall 2009 exchange program in China, joined a student-organized trip to Lhasa and Mount Everest base camp; he died of altitude sickness at base camp (~18,000 ft).
- The exchange program (YISA) was a collaborative effort between the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR)/University and Nanjing American University (NAU); some program staff assisted with permits and communications but no faculty or staff accompanied the Tibet trip.
- Fourteen of 17 study-abroad students participated; they arranged and paid a Tibet tour company (Tibettours) directly; no academic credit was awarded and the trip was not part of the curriculum.
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Boisson sued ABOR, the State, and NAU for wrongful death/negligence under Arizona common law; the superior court granted summary judgment for defendants holding they owed no duty to Morgan on the Tibet trip.
- On appeal the court considered whether a duty arose from the student-school relationship or from public policy and affirmed the summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty of care based on the student-school relationship for an off-campus, student-planned trip | The student-school relationship (and program support) imposed an affirmative duty to protect Morgan during study-abroad travel | No duty: the trip was off-campus, student-organized, not curricular, no school supervision or faculty present, risks independent of school | No duty: trip not an off-campus school activity; duty is bounded by school control (time/geography) |
| Whether defendants owed a duty based on public policy to protect students off premises and away from school-supervised activities | Public policy requires schools to protect students during study-abroad activities generally | Public policy does not extend duty to unsupervised, student-initiated off-campus travel absent statute or supervision | No public-policy duty recognized; declining to broaden duty absent supervision or statutory mandate |
| Whether program materials/assistance (brochures, staff help, permit letters, cell phones, make-up class permission) created a duty | Program brochures, staff assistance, and student support services show school sponsorship and responsibility | These materials and limited assistance do not translate into custody, supervision, or control sufficient to create a duty | Assistance and promotional materials insufficient to create a legal duty for the student-organized Tibet trip |
| Whether expert testimony can create a duty issue for trial | Expert: study-abroad programs should categorically owe a duty throughout program participation | Existence of duty is a legal question for the court, not for expert opinion | Expert opinion irrelevant to duty determination; duty is a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (Arizona 2007) (foreseeability is not part of the court's duty inquiry)
- Monroe v. Basis School, Inc., 234 Ariz. 155 (App. 2014) (scope of student-school duty tied to school control in time and geography)
- Collette v. Tolleson Unified Sch. Dist., 203 Ariz. 359 (App. 2002) (factors for treating off-campus conduct as school activity)
- Delbridge v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 182 Ariz. 55 (App. 1994) (college owed duty for on-campus class-related injury)
- Jesik v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 125 Ariz. 543 (Arizona 1980) (recognizing university duty for on-campus activities)
- Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., 234 Ariz. 470 (App. 2014) (applying factors to determine off-campus activity status)