Higher Education and Tort Regulation

Tort laws are one of the most prevalent types of civil litigation and are complicated in many ways. Tort cases vary from a lady burning her legs and accusing McDonald’s of failing to warn her that the coffee would be hot to someone suing Costco for sliding on a wet floor without a wet floor sign alerting them of the hazard. Do not be misled by these instances; tort laws may be used whenever a person is injured in a way that might have been avoided. Do not mistakenly believe that tort laws only apply to individuals taking on powerful corporations. It is most likely a tort law case if there is a court lawsuit and it does not include narcotics, constitutional law, immigration law, the motor vehicle code, or zoning or environmental regulations (Johnson, 2015). This essay will concentrate on the impact and application of tort laws inside post-secondary educational institutions due to the wide range of possibilities and expansive nature of tort laws.

What Makes a Tort Case?

Every successful tort case must have four components, according to Babcock (2020): duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. Duty refers to the defendant’s obligations (person being sued). A college lecturer, for instance, has a responsibility to provide a secure learning atmosphere where students are encouraged to form bonds with classmates and feel free to voice their thoughts.

A defendant commits a breach of duty if they fail to carry out the obligations that are placed on them. When a college professor, for instance, fails to create a safe learning environment, students are discouraged from developing friendships with their classmates and are reluctant to express their ideas aloud in class for fear of being punished or chastised.

The link between cause and effect is known as causation (Babcock, 2020). This implies that any potential event that hurt or upset someone happened as a result of anything that might have been prevented. As an example, a student in a lab in a college course suffers chemical burns since the instructor never emphasized or firmly taught the necessary safety procedures needed while dealing with chemicals. The professor’s negligence would be seen as the cause of the student’s chemical burn. Legally speaking, the chemical burn that resulted would be considered an injury, which is the fourth element necessary in a tort lawsuit.

The tasks and responsibilities of the person being accused must be clearly specified, which is the easiest way to comprehend the four requirements. An individual’s failure to uphold their obligations is seen as the cause of someone else’s harm. A successful tort lawsuit may happen when these factors are outlined and demonstrated.

Three Primary Tort Types

According to Babcock (2020), there are three primary categories of torts: strict responsibility, negligence, and deliberate torts. When someone is intentionally injured, it is considered an intentional tort. Physical assaults, trespassing, slander, battery, and false imprisonment are a few examples of intentional torts.

Strict responsibility refers to situations when someone may face legal repercussions under tort laws even if they were not at fault. This is an activity that takes place and ultimately results in someone else being hurt. The phrase “If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma you may be eligible to legal recompense” will inevitably appear in a television ad. This ad serves as an example of a legal practice seeking strict responsibility tort victims. Someone at some time constructed a house or another construction and mistakenly utilized materials that were carcinogenic, which led to someone developing mesothelioma. The creator of these buildings would be liable for any harm done to anybody who was exposed to the carcinogenic elements, even if this was not their goal. Other instances of strict responsibility include incidents involving animals and any action that is unusually risky.

Negligence is the last and most prevalent kind of tort. Negligence is the breaking of a person’s obligation. An example of negligence in a tort case would be the professor’s failure to adequately instruct his pupils on safety procedures, which led to chemical burns.

Higher Education’s Implications for Ethics

The impact of these tort laws on higher education will be the main topic of this paper, as was previously noted. As you keep reading, think about the following: How many individuals do you know in the working world who purposefully fail to fulfill their obligations? Have you ever encountered someone who purposefully commits errors? Despite the fact that many tort cases involve persons who meant well, accidents do happen often and sadly result in injuries. The plaintiff (person suing) must demonstrate that the defendant was at fault and that not all essential safeguards were taken, which is why tort laws exist.

Any employee employed by a college or university is in fact compensated for their work. Institutions provide applicants a job description that lists the responsibilities and tasks that a hire is accountable for. Candidates must be aware of the tasks and responsibilities of the position they are seeking for before getting employed since their pay reflects the work they will be required to complete. Any person working for a higher education institution must keep their end of the bargain with this understanding. Many individuals would be outraged and take notice right away if the institution for which a person works breaks their half of the bargain and fails to pay their employees or professors. Similar to this, if someone does not uphold the standards that are expected of them, they are failing not just the school but also the pupils whom they have pledged to serve. Cutting shortcuts and failing to go out of one’s way to ensure that all required safeguards are taken are unacceptable. An person is entirely responsible for the harm done to others if these standards are not kept. This is the duty violation that tort laws will try to hold accountable.

Higher education institutions need a large team of employees and professors to work together and keep the school functioning like a well-oiled machine if they are to be successful. It is the responsibility of each individual to bring to the notice of the person who is not doing their tasks to the greatest standards, since this sort of conduct will ultimately create a poor perception of the school as a whole and the staff/faculty as a whole. It is essential that further measures be taken if the person in question keeps failing to carry out their obligations. These actions may include informing the employee’s immediate supervisor, putting them on probation and giving them a deadline or last warning to correct the error, or firing the person for failing to meet their contractual obligations.

Everything you accomplish in life should be done to the best of your abilities, according to the author of this essay. A person shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which issues to work on. Many tort law claims and injuries that arise may be prevented if a higher education institution promoted a culture like this. This may be prevented from both the standpoints of the prospective plaintiffs in a tort lawsuit as well as the employee working in higher education. This ideal establishes a setting where everyone may live in confidence that all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure a secure environment. An atmosphere in which no one is responsible for any injuries that occur since they were really unintentional and hence not avoidable. This thinking also promotes a mindset in which someone who sustains an injury accidently does not seek to assign blame or pursue monetary recompense.

State laws govern tort laws.

A crucial aspect of tort laws has to be taken into account in addition to the three primary categories of tort cases—intentional, strict responsibility, and negligence—and the four essential components of a tort case—obligation, breach of duty, causation, and culpability—mentioned in the preceding sections. Johnson (2015) asserts that state laws make up the majority of tort law. This is because most legal disputes include contracts, property, and unjust enrichment, all of which fall within the purview of state law. Higher education institutions need to be aware of judgments made in their states and the general trend of how case decisions are made in light of this. It is essential to remember that all tort laws adhere to the same fundamental principles and that there may be very little variations in state rulings. Minor details, however, are what really matter in court proceedings, therefore even the smallest variations across states may have a significant impact on a single case. We will examine two situations and the specifics that affected each case in the next sections.

University of Delaware v. Furek

This court case, which occurred in 1991, was one of the early tort law decisions that started to give higher education institutions more accountability for the welfare of their students.

In this instance, The University of Delaware was aware of the harm caused by fraternity hazing to certain of its students. The student dean responded by issuing a statement saying that fraternity hazing would not be tolerated. This first declaration was insufficient to stop the hazing. Another instance occurred when the school was drafting a hazing prevention policy. The event included Jeffrey Furek, a pledge to a fraternity, who underwent the procedures of the fraternity’s initiation during which one of the fraternity members blindfolded him and sprayed oven cleaner on him. Furek had serious scars and chemical burns as a result. He then sued the person who spilled the oven cleaner, the fraternity, and the institution for negligence. The Supreme Court of Delaware found in Furek’s favor, holding that despite the fact that university students are adults who are responsible for their safety, the university is equally liable due to the large number of young people it has attracted.

This judgment was unique at the time compared to prior ones where the universities had won. In the past, there had been a belief that colleges weren’t meant to be babysitters and shouldn’t be held accountable for the actions of the young people enrolled there.

Soccer Association of Columbia v. Coleman

Although this case is not specifically related to a higher education institution, it should be taken into account when a university’s sports department decides to hold athletic camps or competitions. Maryland hosted the court case in 2013. James Coleman, the plaintiff, was supervising a team’s practice while serving as a volunteer coach for the Soccer Association of Columbia. Despite the association having its own fields, this specific practice was held on a field owned by a nearby school since all of the association’s fields were in use at the time. Coleman was hurt while attempting to retrieve a ball from a goal. He opted to hang from the crossbar while he made his way beneath the goal post to retrieve the ball. He fell backward while leaning on the unanchored goalpost, inflicting serious facial fractures that necessitated many surgical procedures and the implantation of metal plates in his face. Coleman brought legal action against the association for failing to properly secure the goal. The organization said that they shouldn’t be held accountable since Coleman was careless in failing to utilize the goal as planned. Coleman put his own safety at danger, thus the association said he had contributed negligence.

The association won the lawsuit in the end, according to the ruling. Coleman was found to be at fault for choosing to hang from the top of the goal, even though the jury found that the association was not blameless and had been irresponsible in failing to assure the goals’ safety (contributory negligence). The state of Maryland’s tort rules declare that even while the jury found the association to be at blame, everyone found guilty of contributing negligence is still individually accountable for any harm caused by their acts. In Maryland, if there is even a little amount of contributory negligence, the defendant will always win their case (Justia, 2020).

Effects of Tort on Soccer Coaches

I have a duty to uphold the ideals and obligations that a higher education institution expects of me as an employee. Because of the nature of my position inside the organization, I am more accountable as a soccer coach. I have a responsibility to protect kids’ safety both academically and via my involvement in athletics. Due to the high impact nature of soccer, it is my responsibility to not only create a safe atmosphere for student athletes, but also to make sure I have the necessary training to deal with tense circumstances when harm to people may have happened. If I ever become a defendant in a tort case, the actions I take—or don’t take—will be taken into consideration. Any safety measures that are not followed and result in a person being hurt might have serious consequences for both the school and myself.

The men’s and women’s soccer teams at Dakota Wesleyan University held a futsal competition that attracted 132 teams. It was crucial to take the necessary safeguards with over a thousand competitors traveling to join us for our event. There were safety measures taken, such as having athletic trainers at each of the three locations, checking that all the equipment was in good working condition, having field marshals watch the courts continually, and designating spaces where teams may warm up and kick the ball. All of these safety measures were included to the liability releases, in which players acknowledged that although DWU would work to provide a safe atmosphere, there was still a chance of harm inherent to participating in sports. Making sure I don’t skimp on quality in order to save money is vital to me. Although we could have saved money by using unregistered referees, untrained marshals, and a traveling athletic trainer, this futsal tournament is the largest fundraiser our program has each year, and if something serious had occurred and it was determined that we had not taken all necessary precautions, we would be seriously at risk of a tort lawsuit. It is preferable to be safe than sorry when it comes to tort legislation and my employment inside a higher education institution.