Univ. of S. Cal. v. Superior Court of Cnty. of L. A.
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 616
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- On Oct. 10, 2013, at an unauthorized off‑campus fraternity party hosted by Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s Cal. Gamma chapter on Greek Row, Carson Barenborg (a non‑USC student) was bumped off a makeshift seven‑foot platform and suffered serious injuries.
- USC had policies restricting unauthorized parties and alcohol, and its Department of Public Safety (DPS) patrolled Greek Row; DPS officers visited Cal. Gamma that evening, saw alcohol, warned occupants, but did not shut the party down.
- Barenborg sued USC (and others) for negligence, alleging USC owed a duty to protect her by enforcing its policies and shutting down the party.
- The trial court denied USC’s summary judgment motion, finding triable issues about a special relationship and voluntary assumption of duty; USC sought a writ of mandate challenging that denial.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding USC had no duty to protect Barenborg (a nonstudent invitee at an off‑campus, non‑curricular event) from third‑party conduct and did not assume a protective duty by adopting policies and providing DPS patrols.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USC owed a duty to protect a nonstudent invitee at an off‑campus fraternity party from third‑party conduct | Barenborg: USC’s policies and DPS patrols created a duty to protect invitees on Greek Row | USC: No duty to protect against third‑party conduct absent a special relationship or other exception | No duty: USC did not have a special relationship with Barenborg and therefore no duty to protect her from third‑party conduct |
| Whether USC had a special relationship with Barenborg as an invitee based on control/monitoring of the premises | Barenborg: USC’s policies and DPS presence show control and give rise to landowner/invitee duty | USC: It did not own/control the fraternity property; policies and periodic patrols fall short of possession/control | No special relationship: USC’s policies/patrols did not constitute control of the Cal. Gamma property |
| Whether USC had a special relationship with Cal. Gamma (the third party) giving rise to a duty to control members | Barenborg: USC’s disciplinary authority and policy regime gave USC power/control over fraternity members | USC: Limited ability to control off‑campus, noncurricular student social activity; no sufficient control over Cal. Gamma | No special relationship with Cal. Gamma: Colleges generally lack control over off‑campus noncurricular activities, so no duty to control fraternity members |
| Whether USC voluntarily assumed a duty (negligent undertaking) by promulgating policies and providing DPS patrols | Barenborg: USC undertook protective measures (policies, DPS) and plaintiffs relied on them | USC: Adoption of safety policies and roving patrols does not, without more, create a duty; failure to prevent a preexisting risk is nonactionable nonfeasance | Negligent undertaking inapplicable: USC’s measures did not create or increase the risk, nor did Barenborg reasonably rely on USC in that setting |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (Cal. 2018) (establishes limited special‑relationship duty colleges owe to enrolled students only in curricular or closely related activities)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005) (no general duty to protect others from third‑party criminal conduct; outlines negligent‑undertaking principles)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (special‑relationship duty to control a dangerous third party in limited contexts)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (factors for determining when to impose duty of care)
- Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church, 3 Cal.5th 1077 (Cal. 2017) (attenuated causal connection weighs against imposing duty when third‑party conduct is independent)
- Alcaraz v. Vece, 14 Cal.4th 1149 (Cal. 1997) (land possessor duty can arise from control over property even without ownership)
- Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist., 36 Cal.3d 799 (Cal. 1984) (landowner duty to warn invitees of known dangers on campus)
- Paz v. State of California, 22 Cal.4th 550 (Cal. 2000) (requirements for negligent undertaking liability)