Furek v. University of Delaware

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, a university may be liable for a student’s injuries during fraternity hazing activities when the university knows of the dangers involved in such activities and undertakes to regulate the activities
• rejecting a custodial relationship between university and student, noting that most jurisdictions have abandoned the in loco parentis doctrine’s application to college students
• describing \realities of modern college life where students are regarded as adults in almost every phase of community life\ [quotations and citation omitted]
• \students are now regarded as adults in almost every phase of community life\ [quotation and citation omitted]
• “[A]lthough the University no longer stands in loco parentis to its students, the relationship is sufficiently close and direct to impose a duty under Restatement § 314A.”
• “The university is not an insurer of the safety of its students nor a policeman of student morality, nonetheless, it has a duty to regulate and supervise foreseeable dangerous activities occurring on its property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).