Two Temple University students were hospitalized after falling four stories while they were allegedly trying to take a selfie at a rooftop party. The students were at a party around 2 a.m. on Saturday when they fell from the rooftop and landed in an alley. The management company insisted that there is an ample barrier, but the case could raise some challenging questions in a tort action for both sides.
Notably, this is the second such fall for Temple students. In 2013, Temple freshman Ali Fausnaught, 19, fell to her death a few blocks away from the most recent accident. The roof of that building had only a 10-inch ledge, which seems grossly negligent if the area is open to guests. Indeed, even if confined to employees, a ten-inch ledge would make accidents highly foreseeable.
In this case, Temple University student Arnav Johri is quoted as saying that the barrier was insufficiently high, “[s]o if you’re drinking and you run right into it, it’s really easy to slip right off because it only comes to like a little halfway between your knee and hip.”
Assuming that the description is accurate, it could raise a myriad of tort issues. First, assuming that the building was in compliance with municipal codes on the height of the barrier, compliance with such codes do not make a company immune. Cases like Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408 (1892), have long established that compliance with statutory standards are not conclusive evidence of reasonableness. While the violation of a statute can be negligence per se, mere compliance is not determinative as a defense on negligence.
The question is whether such a low barrier is reasonable, particularly if the roof is open to guests, let alone guests drinking and partying. In my view there would be a substantial claim of negligence in such a barrier in a public area on top of a building. There are a host of ways for people to be pushed over such a barrier or position themselves dangerously on or around the barrier.
If the area is closed to the public, the status as effective trespassers can bar recovery. However, even in such a case, there can be liability for trespassers when there are discovered or anticipated trespassers.
Assuming that negligence is found, there remains a serious plaintiffs conduct question. Under the old contributory negligence standard, the two students would be entirely barred from recovery since even one percent of fault attributed to the plaintiffs would result in such a bar. Most states are now comparative negligence jurisdictions following either pure or modified approaches. Pennsylvania (under PA General Assembly Statute §7102) is a modified or partial comparative jurisdiction where a plaintiff can be contributory negligent and recover so long as she was less than 51 percent at fault. If she is found to be more than 50 percent at fault, she is entirely barred. Note however that your percentage of fault below 51 percent is still applied against your damages. Thus, if you were awarded $100 but found to be 40 % at fault, you would recover only $60.
The building could argue that there was negligent conduct at the party, including drinking. It is not clear if these students were drinking but it was very late and the party reportedly did involve alcohol. More importantly, if the students were taking a selfie, there may have been reckless behavior. I could teach a whole course on selfie torts, as shown in many prior postings on this blog. If the students were both heavily drinking and taking reckless action, it could cross the threshold for a bar on recovery. Indeed, the party might not be in compliance Covid guidelines (though this is the risk that those rules are designed to protect against and could be viewed as inapplicable as a standard of care). However, the building must anticipate such foreseeable misconduct, if it occurred. Rooftops parties are common and alcohol is commonly present at such parties. The view itself is an attraction for those wanting pictures.
The chances of a lawsuit would seem high in this circumstance. Indeed, if that barrier was as low as described and the area open to the public, it would seem a strong potential tort action.
Chicagoland. 3 dead, 34 wounded. Black lives matter.
Do you believe the rumour about Queen Elizabeth II?
Benson – I’m afraid to ask, but what rumor?
I don’t know what he has in mind but there is a rumor–denied–that she is thinking of retiring.
Karen S —- 4 stiff drinks each and every day.
she’s been a functional alcoholic for many decades. and yet. most non-alcoholics would do quite well to accomplish the orderly and productive life that she has
It worked pretty well for Churchill.
Bevis and Butthead were ahead of their time.
Can we see the selfie?
Meh, one moron looks pretty much like the next moron. Darwin was right, BTW.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
___________________
The principals were negligent.
The principals are victims only of their own actions and misbehaviors.
The building took no willful kinetic action against the principals.
Caveat emptor.
The function of a building is to shelter.
It is not the function of a building to provide security.
It is not the function of a building to conduct any aspect or facet of the life of any human being.
The gross negligence of the principals was aggravated by Apple and/or Samsung; both of which willfully, wittingly and deliberately market distracting and addictive phones.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“It’s the [I-phone], stupid!”
– James Carville
Jonathan: There is an update about those who attended Trump’s Rose Garden celebration for Supreme Court nominee Judge Barrett. Kellyanne Conway has tested positive for Covid-19 after attending the event. Now Claudia Conway, the daughter of the former WH advisor, has also tested positive and in a post said: “Update my mom has covid…I’m furious. Wear your face masks. don’t listen to our idiot f——president piece of s—protect yourself and those around you”. How disrespectful! Claudia has been critical of her mother and Trump for some time. Can you imagine the conversation around the dinner table at the Conway residence with Gorge having to referee? No wonder Kellyanne resigned. She was having enough problems at home. Claudia says her mother told her “masks are stupid”. Do you think Kellyanne thinks the same thing now?
In another bit of news, on Friday someone took a pick axe and destroyed Trump’s star on the “Hollywood Walk of Fame”. Since Trump took office the star has been vandalized a number of times but now someone gave it the coup de gras. The person who did this can’t be identified because he/she was dressed in an “Incredible Hulk” costume. While a lot of people are out of work now days at least the workers for the Hollywood Historic Trust are keeping busy. I suppose, Jonathan, you will want to speculate that the perpetrator was a “member” of Antifa, After all, they are responsible for most of the violence around the country. Right?
“Big Dirty Money” by J. Taub
Too close to home for Jonathan Turley.
Jonathan: It can’t be because it’s a slow news day that you are giving us a a lesson in tort law. Trump is in the hospital–apparently very ill form the coronavirus. We don’t know his exact condition because the WH and Trump’s doctors are putting out so much contradictory information. Trump wants everyone one to think he will be fine in a few days and back on the campaign trail.
Now if you want to talk about the law of “negligence” let’s consider how Trump handled the COVID-19. From the very beginning he denied the virus was a serious problem. He has obstructed efforts to deal with the crisis. He has refused to wear a face mask and told his WH House staff and those that visit not to wear them. WH staff have been very worried for months about contracting the virus but were told they could not get tested because that would make their boss look “weak”. At the WH ceremony last week for Supreme Court nominee Judge Barret none of the attendees wore face masks, including your buddy AG Barr. I wouldn’t want to have those long lunches with your mentor any time soon. I guess those present thought they were safe inside Trump’s make believe “bubble” of denial. That bubble was burst when a number tested positive. Now everyone in the WH and those who attended the ceremony are running around with their hair on fire! If Trump were a private citizen (he may soon be) there would be a lot of attorneys signing up people who attended the soiree last Saturday. The causes of action would be based on Trump’s gross negligence in intentionally exposing people to the coronavirus. Now Trump might have a number of defenses. At his rally’s people who signed up had to sign coronavirus waivers. Maybe attendees at the Barrett ceremony also had to sign waivers. But waivers often don’t hold up in the courts. Trump could also point out the tort element of “causation” that is required for a negligence action. How could someone prove they contracted the virus at the ceremony last week. Then you have the defense of “assumption of the risk”. No doubt many if not all of the attendees at the ceremony knew or should have known they were exposing themselves to a known risk. This seems to be the best defense since anyone who is around Trump should know bad things happen!
The accident at Temple University may be interesting as a case study for law students. But you missed a golden opportunity to discuss the much more serious gross negligence, not to mention criminal conduct, of the President of the United States. But if you did this you might be accused by your conservative minded students and followers of “liberal bias”–and you wouldn’t want that.
Maybe Turley should be more concerned about the trump supporters that are going to fall off their edge of the flat earth in November.
Maybe you should keep the 800 n;umber for your local suicide hotline handy.
Maybe the concern should be that we all learn to speak Mandarin.
President Donald J. Trump will KICK A– and TAKE NAMES.
Joke Buydem will KISS A– and TAKE BRIBES.
There was a tv interview of the Trump medical team a minute ago. They were terrible at discussing things.
C’mon, let’s do Trump. This pablum of Turley’s is thin and needs to be spiked. I’m taking bets that Trump comes out of this even worse than he went in; if that’s possible.
You just couldn’t help yourself, could you? You really are a despicable human being.
Trump gets better-comes out of this-and chest puffed out starts in again about how he saved millions. You can’t see that, despicable Trump making lemonade out of his lemons. And his base drinking the Kool-Aid.
And yet here we are, you and your pathetic ilk believing you have any credibility after being proven wrong for 4 years. Until you admit your failures, nothing you have to say deserves a response beyond: Apologize to President Trump and the American people for supporting the Democrat/Russia collusion coup.
Whoever owns that building (off campus apartment) just needs to settle. Agree or not, juries now do not take into account personal responsibility. So if the roof top was open for social gatherings, then the jury would find the responsibility would rest on the building owner to insure one could not easily fall over the railing. The reports seem to describe a barrier one could set on, not one like required around porches more than a couple ft off the ground.
So the owner of property with a cliff over looking a river is responsible for drunks falling over?
It’s not like the building owner had a kindergarten class up on the roof.
Liberty, if you read my comment, you will see I do not agree that they are liable. What I am saying is juries today will find them liable, just like the one that awarded millions to the person placing a coffee cup in their lap while driving, spilled the coffee, burned their privates and found McDonalds liable for coffee being too hot.
Most likely the students were drunk, were standing or sitting on the railing, screwing around trying to get some selfie they wanted to go far and wide with their friends, one lost their balance and pulled the other over with them.
Do you think personal responsibility will even be considered in any court case? I do not.
In our country any tort case is productive because the loser does not have to pay for court costs of the winner. So one can sue, run up cost, take it to court for any issue that has a small chance of success and the defendant has to pay huge amounts to win a case. That is why many settle. It is cheaper than defending and winning.
I’ll give you a hint about who owns nearby “off campus apartments”
usually people with ties to the board of directors who can get early access to development plans and schedules and pick the winning nearby ghettoes for “gentrification” before the rest
universities are wicked criminal rackets, i tell you, if you only knew but they pay the reporters and editors off to cover so much stuff up it’s almost unbelievable
our socalled “free press” isnt worth a bucket of warm spit, they’re ever and always complicit
Darwin Award winners.
I think to be considered for a Darwin award you have to have actually died and removed yourself from the gene pool.
There has been a song out for many years. Some of the lyrics can be changed so as to make two songs to fit two catagories of colleges which should be boycotted.
1). Good ol boys from LSU. Went in dumb come out dumb too. Hustling round Atlanta in their allegator shoes. Keeping the …
2). Snotty dogs from Harvard U. Went in snide, cone out snide too. Drunk on the weekends at their bar b ques. Spend hundreds of thousands to think their poop don’t stink.
The town should sue the drinks for landing in the alley.
I meant to spull “drunks” not drinks.
I went to Temple. Seem to recall that someone fell off a roof at a party back in the 80s as well. But, it was the 80s.
Trump created an environment of ‘anti-masks’. People working in the government were doing so, theoretically, in the best interests of the people of the US. Trump chided to demanded that those around him ‘take that thing off’. So, can those that caught the virus in this atmosphere sue the buffoon? Now, when you visualize your champion, visualize Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman, ‘What me worry?’
Seems the school should just close access to the roof of all buildings. That said, if the university is sued to bankruptcy, no great loss since that’s one fewer indoctrination camp.
universities are generally self insured and Temple can easily chuck out $20 million for a 2 victim wrongful death suit.
drunk kids die at these “temples” of alcoholism year after year and they pay the papers to keep the coverage low key
nothing advances alcoholism in America more than higher mis-education
the budgets for major universities are measured in spends over a billion a year. people have no idea how big these creatures are. supposed nonprofits which pay jack squat in taxes.
they run minor league football franchises too and somehow the player’s cant even form unions
worst racket in America going right now and deserve RICO prosecutions across the board
From all indications I have seen, this was not campus property. It was an off campus apartment building.
The average college “snowflake” has the mentality of a 5 year old.
It sounds as if Temple might be in the lead for the number of Darwin Award winners.
It sounds to me as yet another example that Gen Z are by and large the fruit of the people that have won every other other year.