Varner v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that operational manuals do not establish standard of care because, to hold otherwise, “would create the perverse incentive ... to write [manuals] in such a manner as to impose minimal duties ... in order to limit civil liability.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that operational manuals do not establish standard of care because, to hold otherwise, ―would create the perverse incentive . . . to write [manuals] in such a manner as to impose minimal duties . . . in order to limit civil liability.‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• declining to recognize acts of misconduct listed in the university’s student handbook as a standalone basis for establishing the applicable standard of care in a negligence claim
• rejecting expert testimony at summary judgment because “[o]ther than his own personal opinion,” the expert was “unable to suggest any recognized standard, written or oral, which addressed the” standard of care
• requiring expert testimony in a case involving the failure to expel university student
• “Aspirational practices do not establish the standard of care which the plaintiff must prove in support of an allegation of negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).