Hegel v. Langsam

29 Ohio Misc. 147, 273 N.E.2d 351 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971)

 

RULE:

There is no requirement of the law placing on a university or its employees, any duty to regulate the private lives of their students, to control their comings and goings and to supervise their associations.

FACTS:

Plaintiffs sued defendants in this original action alleging defendants university and its employees allowed plaintiffs' daughter to become associated with criminals, to be seduced, become a drug user and caused the daughter to disobey plaintiffs. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.

ISSUE:

Whether the university may be held responsible for the personal life of their student.

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

Court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a cause of action. Court found plaintiffs misconstrued purpose of a university. University was place of higher learning. It was not responsible for and no had duty to oversee plaintiffs' daughter's personal life. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3345.21 and 2151.41 were not applicable to the facts of the case.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.