The thing about it is, when you say that a facility is safe, and prevent folks from protecting themselves under written code, you have a contract; anything that happens contrary to that contract opens you up to a claim.
"The suit says UMW creates "an illusion of campus security." The school's literature and other advertising material "emphasize safety and note the presence of campus police."Yup. This is interesting to me because the whole purpose of "Gun Free Zones" is to avoid the bloodsucking lawyers coming forward in droves to sue for some sort of negligence. It seems to me that the opposite is true.
The university assumed responsibilities for the victim's safety because she was a full-time student who lived on campus, according to the lawsuit."
Now the very policy that UMW took to insulate itself from littigation will probably cost $10 million. I hope that poor girl gets every penny.
It's telling though that students willingly embrace this assinine policy; in the past, UMW students have made statements to the effect that security cameras in the parking garage would have prevented the attack on the victim because the cops would be able to later identify the rapist. Read that sentence again, because I'm not making it up. That's the sort of youth that Americans are sending to these campuses.
That still doesn't take away from the fact that if a corporate type entity makes the statement that you cannot provide for your own security, as the entity will provide that for you, than when they fail at their stated duty, they can and will get their asses sued. Common Law can be a bitch.
Post a Comment