On remand, the Court of Appeal holds that the duty that colleges owe students to protect them against foreseeable harm requires a plaintiff to allege three elements:  (1) the injury occurred while “engaged in activities that are part of the school’s curriculum or closely related to its delivery of educational services,” (2)  the college was aware of information that placed, or should have placed, it on notice that the perpetrator presented a foreseeable threat of violence to other students, and (3) the college failed to act with reasonable care in response to the foreseeable threat of violence.  The standard of care governing that duty is governed by the ordinary negligence standard of care, namely “that degree of care which people of ordinarily prudent behavior could be reasonably expected to exercise under the circumstances.”  A triable issue of fact remained as to whether UCLA was negligent in responding to the threat in this case.  Government tort immunities did not shield the university from liability either.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 (Zelon, J.); December 3, 2018; 29 Cal. App. 5th 890