Mullins Legal Brief 1
Running head:CASE LAW LEGAL BRIEF: MULLINS
Case Law Legal Brief: Mullins v. PineManorCollege
Karen K. Cooper
College Student Affairs 502, Spring 2007
The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Abstract
In anaction taken against Pine Manor Collegeby student, Lisa Mullins, to recover damages for her injuries when she was raped on campus by an unidentified assailant, there was sufficient evidence to find the defendants negligent in providing protection from criminal acts by a third party. This negligence is due to an inadequate security system in which locks and gates were left unsecured, too few guards efficiently patrolled the grounds, and the key system was completely insufficient. The assailant was able to get onto campus and into the victim’s room unescorted. He walked her out of her building with a pillowcase covering her head, across a courtyard, and across campus undetected to an unlocked building where he raped her.
Title and Citation:
Mullins v. PineManorCollege (389 Mass. 47, 449 N.E.2d 331)
Facts of the Case:
PineManorCollege is a women’s collegeoutside Bostonwith a six-foot chain link fence around the perimeter of the campus except near the main entrance where it drops to four feet high on each side of the entrance. Each of three villages contains a commons building and a few dormitories arranged in a square. Students were given one key that opened the commons building, the dormitory, and their individual room. All visitors entered by a security guard after 8 p.m. and registered at the commons building and were assigned an escort. After 1 a.m. on weekends, visitors were not permitted anywhere on campus without an escort. Males were allowed to stay overnight depending on the parietal plan chosen by the student. Mullins had selected the plan that allowed them to stay overnight on weekends. Because Mullins was a first-year student, she was required to live on campus. She lived in a single room at the end of a hallway with another student in the adjacent room and their doors at right angles to one another.
When the incident occurred, two security guards were on duty. One guard was at the main entrance in an observation post and the other was on patrol. The patrolling guard was charged with making rounds every fifteen to thirty minutes and checking the locks on doors and gates.
On December 11, 1977 at 3 a.m., Mullins returned to her room with two friends. The gates into the courtyard had been unlocked. The three girls went to their own separate rooms and got ready for bed. For a few minutes, Mullins talked with a friend who lived in the next room while standing near her friend’s open door. Mullins’ door was open. At approximately4-4:30 a.m., she awoke to an intruder in her room who wanted her car. When she indicated that she did not have a car, the intruder threatened her, put a pillowcase over her head, and led her outside into the courtyard. He then led her out of the courtyard by slipping under the chains on a gate that was not secured tightly. After arriving at the dining hall and walking around in front of it, they proceeded inside by means of an unlocked door. After a few minutes, they came out again and then re-entered the building, where the assailant raped Mullins. He was never apprehended.
Although Pine Manor had had no reports of violent crime previously, just one night before the rape, a young male had climbed over the exterior fence and entered the commons building where Mullins lived through an open door.
The Vote:
The vote was four to one in this case. Four judges were in the majority. Liacos is the author of the majority opinion. Hennessey, Wilkins, and Nolan joined Liacos in that majority opinion. The dissenting opinion came from J. O’Connor.
The Law and/or Constitutional Provisions at Issue:
Although colleges “…are generally under no duty to protect students from the violent acts of third persons (Prosser, §314, 1971), there are certain special relationships that involve a duty to protect,” (Gehring, 2000).In one case it was decided that when students choose to live in campus housing they give up control of their own protection because they essentially cannot protect themselves by using weapons or changing the locking system on their doors(Duarte v. State, 1978).Therefore, the college has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect their students against foreseeable criminal acts.In addition, providing security or police services causes a duty related to care. Lawfully, if a university voluntarily provides a service to protect a person who then relies on the service, the institution must exercise care in providing it (Prosser, §323, 1971)(Gehring, 2000).
The Legal Questions:
DidPineManorCollege have a duty to protect students against criminal acts of third parties?Was there a special relationship that required a duty to protect?Was the crime foreseeable?Did Pine Manor and Person exercise due care or were they negligent?
The Opinion of the Court:
The court was of the opinion that arguing that one may assume others will obey criminal law does not apply to the circumstances of this case. In addition, the court’s opinion that Pine Manor has a duty to provide due care is found in community consensus “…that colleges of ordinary prudence customarily exercise care to protect the well-being of their resident students, including seeking to protect them against the criminal acts of third parties.” The college was in a position to take necessary steps to ensure the safety of its students, and the students were not because of theirinability to change the locks on their doors or provide additional safeguards for themselves. Therefore, it was the obligation of the college to take responsibility for their protection.Pine Manor took on that duty, for which students were being charged either through tuition or dormitory fees. Sufficient security was part of the list of services provided to students.
The opinion of the court was that the crime was foreseeable as well as foreseen. The college administrator warns its new students during orientation about the dangers of living near a metropolitan area at a women’s institution. Moreover, the trespassing incident the previous night was enough to prompt duty. The observation post was far enough from the fence that an intruder was able to scale it without being seen. The single key system was insufficient to provide adequate security for students. Having only two security guards on duty at one time as well as having no system in place to hold guards accountable for their responsibilities made the campus vulnerable. Indeed, the record shows that the guards had not fulfilled their duties. There was sufficient evidence, therefore, in the opinion of the court, that negligence was the proximate cause of the rape. The judgment was affirmed.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinions:
Judge O’Connor’sdissent relates to the court’s opinion that the defendant’s negligent acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Since Mullins lived in a dormitory in which male visitors were permitted to stay overnight and there is no evidence that no males were registeredthat night, the plaintiff cannot prove that the assailant was an intruder rather than a visitor. O’Connor thinks that the court’s opinion that the assailant gained entrance into the room by unfastening the lock is not proven. There is no evidence that when she went to her friend’s room they were close enough to the door to notice if someone slipped into Mullins’ room. O’Connor believes that although it is speculative to think that the perpetrator entered Mullins’ room while she was next door with her friend, it is equally as speculative to think that he entered the room after the door was locked. O’Connor also disagreed that, if Pine Manor had hired more guards to patrol the campus, the assailant and victim would have been seen.
Evaluation of the Case:
This decision is extremely important to the safety of students. In situations where students cannot provide added security for themselves, it is essential that colleges recognize their duty to supply it. Implications include that colleges can no longer simply post a guard at a front gate but must have a force that patrols and secures the campus grounds by checking gates and locks and enforcing the policies already in place. In addition, multiple security devices should be in place rather than a one key system. Mullins’ rape could have been prevented if PineManorCollege would have been more proactive and vigilant, particularly given the trespassing incident that had occurred the night before.
References
Gehring, D.D. (2000).Understanding the legal implications of student affairs practice. In Barr,
M.J., Desler, M.K., and Associates, The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration- 2nd
Ed.(pp. 350-352). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.