Hegel v. Lansam | 29 OhioMisc 147 | March 23, 1971 | Scott Soloway

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Hegel v. Lansam

Original Creator: JenniferH Current Version: Scott Soloway

A seventeen-year-old college student enrolls in university and becomes involved with criminals and drugs. State law required the university to maintain “law and order” on campus, and made it a crime to “contribute to the delinquency of a child”.

Do institutions like universities have a duty to regulate the private lives of their students?

EDIT ANNOTATED ITEM INFORMATION DELETE ANNOTATED ITEM
2

Page 147

5
29 Ohio Misc. 147

8
273 N.E.2d 351, 55 O.O.2d 476, 58 O.O.2d 423

11
Eugene HEGEL et al.
v.
Walter C. LANGSAM et al.

14
No. A-245986.

17
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County.

20
March 23, 1971.
22

        [273 N.E.2d 352] Robert G. Stachler, Cincinnati, for defendant Langsam.

24

        William Flax, Cincinnati, for plaintiff Hegel.

26

        BETTMAN, Judge.

28

        This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The gravamen of plaintiff's position is that the defendants permitted the minor plaintiff, a seventeen year old female student from Chicago, Illinois, enrolled at the University, to become associated wich criminals, to be seduced, to become a drug user and further allowed her to be absent from her dormitory and failed to return her to her parents' custody on demand.

30

        On our opinion plaintiffs completely misconstrue the

32

Page 148

34

        We know of no requirement of the law and none has been cited to us 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.

36

        We do not believe that O.R.C. 3345.21 requiring a university to maintain 'law and order' on campus, nor O.R.C. 2151.41, making it a crime to contribute to the delinquency of a child, have any bearing on the fact situation before us.

38

        For these reasons we hold that plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action and defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted.

40

        Having so determined it is not necessary to consider the defense that the University and its employees are immune from suit.

42

        Please present entry accordingly.

Close

Annotated Case Information

Author Stats

Scott Soloway

business lawyer practicing law

Boston

Expand
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large