Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
29 Cal. App. 5th 890
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Damon Thompson, a UCLA student with documented auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions, exhibited repeated complaints about classmates and at least one prior violent/assaultive incident (pushing a dorm resident); he received intermittent treatment at campus mental-health services but declined hospitalization and later stopped medication and sessions.
- Over several months multiple UCLA employees (professors, dorm staff, Response Team, CAPS clinicians) learned of Thompson’s complaints, hallucinations, prior dorm altercation, and his statements that matters could “escalate,” but Thompson often denied present intent to harm and did not identify a specific target.
- On October 8, while in a chemistry laboratory during class, Thompson stabbed fellow student Katherine Rosen, causing life‑threatening injuries.
- Rosen sued the Regents and several UCLA employees for negligence, alleging a university duty to protect students from foreseeable third‑party violence and breaches (e.g., failing to refer Thompson to the Violence Prevention Team or perform a threat assessment).
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the California Supreme Court in Regents v. Superior Court held universities owe a duty to use reasonable care to protect students from foreseeable violence in curricular settings and remanded to decide (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) whether defendants breached as a matter of law, and (3) statutory immunity issues.
- On remand the Court of Appeal held: the governing standard is the ordinary reasonable‑person negligence standard; triable issues of fact exist on breach and foreseeability; statutory immunity did not bar the claim against the Regents or most individual defendants, but Civil Code § 43.92 bars liability against the treating psychologist (Nicole Green).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postsecondary schools owe a duty to protect students from third‑party violence in curricular settings | Rosen: universities have a special‑relationship duty to protect students from foreseeable violence in classrooms/lab activities | Regents panel (initially): no duty; defendants here urged no duty | California Supreme Court (Regents) and Court of Appeal: duty exists under the special‑relationship doctrine for curricular activities |
| Applicable standard of care to judge university response | Rosen: ordinary reasonably prudent person under like circumstances | Defendants: adopt narrow psychotherapist‑style standard (Civil Code § 43.92) requiring an actual communicated serious threat to an identifiable victim | Held: ordinary negligence (reasonable‑person) standard governs; foreseeability and reasonableness are case‑specific questions for the trier of fact |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on breach/foreseeability grounds | Rosen: evidence (witnesses, experts) shows triable issues—failure to perform threat assessment or refer to Violence Prevention Team | Defendants: their actions were reasonable as a matter of law; Thompson’s conduct was not foreseeably violent | Held: triable issues of material fact exist as to notice/foreseeability and breach; summary judgment denied (case for jury) |
| Whether statutory immunities bar suit (Gov. Code §§ 856, 820.2; Civ. Code § 43.92) | Rosen: immunities do not apply to the operational failures alleged | Defendants: statutory immunities shield decisions about confinement or discretionary acts; psychotherapist statute limits liability | Held: § 856 (confinement) inapplicable; § 820.2 discretionary‑act immunity does not shield operational implementation failures; § 43.92 bars claims against treating psychotherapist Nicole Green but not against other university defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (Cal. 2018) (recognizing universities’ duty to use reasonable care to protect students from foreseeable violence in curricular settings)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (therapist duty to protect foreseeable victims from patient violence)
- C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist., 53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012) (public schools’ duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable third‑party violence; reasonable‑person standard)
- Barner v. Leeds, 24 Cal.4th 676 (Cal. 2000) (discretionary‑act immunity distinguishes planning/policy from operational implementation)
- Mullins v. Pine Manor Coll., 389 Mass. 47 (Mass. 1983) (college duty to protect students from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties)
- Ewing v. Goldstein, 120 Cal.App.4th 807 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (discussing limits of psychotherapist duty and legislative response in Civ. Code § 43.92)