Bradshaw v. Rallings the College

Bradshaw v. Rallings

The college could have better protected itself from potential liability in situations involving student activities and the consumption of alcohol. The college had a written policy about alcohol consumption, which, at least according to the court's analysis, was the one thing that may have helped establish some type of duty. Because the law already prohibits underage people from imbibing and criminalizes driving under the influence of alcohol. The college does not have to make an official policy telling its students that they are required to comply with the existing criminal law. If the college undertook a duty to try to supervise unofficial student functions, it would actually probably lead to an increase in liability, because it would be acting in an official supervisory role. Moreover, though the Court was careful to distinguish between the duties owed by hosts and by commercial enterprises, it would be unreasonable to expect a college, which is a for-profit institution, to which students have paid money, to be treated like a host in tort law. Therefore, the college should ensure that it does not offer alcohol to minors at official college functions, and should refuse to serve alcohol to any person whom it suspects is intoxicated.

2. The outcome of the case may have differed if the picnic had occurred in a different location. It is not the location that is necessarily important, but who was providing the alcohol at the party. This would be more certain if the college's handbook did not mention an alcohol policy; the presence of an alcohol policy helps establish a duty. However, because college handbooks generally mention an alcohol policy, the fact that something occurs on campus or at an official campus-related location, such as a fraternity house, implies that it occurs under the college's supervision, thereby subjecting the university to liability. Some colleges have severed all ties with fraternity/sorority organizations, thereby eliminating liability for things such as hazing. This process is legally and educationally advisable, because colleges can exercise only limited real control over fraternities and sororities, so that they take on almost unfettered liability with the fraternity system.