Hegel v. Langsam case brief summary
F: P is contending that D permitted P to the Uniersity, to become associated with criminals, to be seduced, to become a drug user and allowed her to be absent from her dorm and failed to return to her parent’s custody.
I: Whether University has duty of care as to student’s private lives, or to supervise their associations, and failure to do it constitutes a negligence on the part of University.
R: University has no duty of care as to student’s private lives, or to supervise their associations, and failure to do it does not constitute a negligence on the part of University.
C: in favor of D
F: P is contending that D permitted P to the Uniersity, to become associated with criminals, to be seduced, to become a drug user and allowed her to be absent from her dorm and failed to return to her parent’s custody.
I: Whether University has duty of care as to student’s private lives, or to supervise their associations, and failure to do it constitutes a negligence on the part of University.
R: University has no duty of care as to student’s private lives, or to supervise their associations, and failure to do it does not constitute a negligence on the part of University.
C: in favor of D
No comments:
Post a Comment