You are here: / / COLLEGE DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO TWO STUDENTS WHO DIED IN A FIRE IN...
,

COLLEGE DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO TWO STUDENTS WHO DIED IN A FIRE IN THE OFF-CAMPUS HOUSE THEY WERE RENTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the college (Marist College) did not owe a duty of care to two students (Kerry and Eva) who died in a fire in an off-campus house (Brennan house). The house was on a private-off-campus-housing list made available to students by the college:

“The threshold question in any negligence action is: does defendant owe a legally recognized duty of care to plaintiff?” … . In the context of this action, a critical consideration in determining whether such a duty exists is whether Marist College’s relationship with either the Brennans or Kerry and Eva placed the college in the best position to protect against the risk of harm … . Also relevant is the principle that “one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully” … . …

… .Marist College did not owe a duty of care to Kerry and Eva. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, Marist College demonstrated … that it did not owe a duty to ensure that the off-campus housing listed on its website, which included the Brennan house, complied with all relevant fire safety standards. Even if, in theory, Marist College could have refused to list landlords on its website unless each landlord’s off-campus housing met all relevant fire safety laws and regulations, imposing such a requirement on the college is simply not warranted because the college is not “in the best position to protect against the risk of harm”… . In this regard, it bears recalling that the doctrine of in loco parentis has no application at the college level … . Adult students who chose to live off campus, as well as the private landlords with whom they enter into a contractual relationship, are in the best position to ensure that off-campus apartments and houses have the required number of smoke detectors and other fire safety features. While the risk of fire is all too foreseeable—often with tragic consequences, as this case demonstrates—”[f]oreseeability, alone, does not define duty—it merely determines the scope of the duty once it is determined to exist” … .

… .Marist College also demonstrated … that it did not assume a duty to ensure that the Brennan house was safe for Kerry and Eva to live in, as the college did not engage in any conduct that may have induced Kerry and Eva to forgo some opportunity to avoid risk, thereby placing them “in a more vulnerable position than [they] would have been in had [Marist College] done nothing” … . In fact, the evidence shows, among other things, that Kerry and Eva found the Brennan house because they knew some of the students who had been renting it. Fitzsimons v Brennan, 2019 NY Slip Op 01200,  Second Dept 2-20-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Warranty” Need Not Be Set Forth In Any Special Manner—Here the Language on the Declaration Page that “Warranted” a Fire Alarm Will Be “Fully Operational” Was a Valid Condition Precedent to the Insured’s Liability—Summary Judgment In Favor of Insurer Properly Granted
Motion to Disqualify an Attorney Who Had Previously Represented Both Parties and Related Businesses Should Have Been Granted
Appreciation of Value of Marital Residence Should Have Been Reduced by Cost of Improvements
ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITIY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DEFENSE AND THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT FITNESS CENTER; ALLEGEDLY, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE TRAINER INSTRUCTED HIM TO ATTEMPT A BALANCING EXERCISE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, ENTERED WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STILL PENDING, STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING ANEW (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY... DEFENSE COUNSEL’S INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE A SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION...