{"title":"Preventing Student Suicide: Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology","authors":"B. Grey","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2023-0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Student suicide is a tragic problem on university campuses. Should universities have a tort duty to prevent them? Common law historically has shielded universities from liability based on the “suicide rule,” which holds that suicide is an intervening cause of harm and thus not within the scope of risk of negligence. Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology represents a shift in this view, and begins to usher universities into an era of greater accountability, while mitigating the harsh impact of the suicide rule. This essay examines Nguyen as a classic example of common law’s incremental development. As with other areas previously off-limits to tort liability, Nguyen moves cautiously, opening the door to liability but with limits that avoid expansive liability in the absence of a university’s actual knowledge of suicide risk. It is too early to tell whether those limits will remain, or whether the basis for liability recognized in Nguyen will expand. Either way, Nguyen represents an important step in tort law’s response to a significant societal problem.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Student suicide is a tragic problem on university campuses. Should universities have a tort duty to prevent them? Common law historically has shielded universities from liability based on the “suicide rule,” which holds that suicide is an intervening cause of harm and thus not within the scope of risk of negligence. Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology represents a shift in this view, and begins to usher universities into an era of greater accountability, while mitigating the harsh impact of the suicide rule. This essay examines Nguyen as a classic example of common law’s incremental development. As with other areas previously off-limits to tort liability, Nguyen moves cautiously, opening the door to liability but with limits that avoid expansive liability in the absence of a university’s actual knowledge of suicide risk. It is too early to tell whether those limits will remain, or whether the basis for liability recognized in Nguyen will expand. Either way, Nguyen represents an important step in tort law’s response to a significant societal problem.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Tort Law aims to be the premier publisher of original articles about tort law. JTL is committed to methodological pluralism. The only peer-reviewed academic journal in the U.S. devoted to tort law, the Journal of Tort Law publishes cutting-edge scholarship in tort theory and jurisprudence from a range of interdisciplinary perspectives: comparative, doctrinal, economic, empirical, historical, philosophical, and policy-oriented. Founded by Jules Coleman (Yale) and some of the world''s most prominent tort scholars from the Harvard, Fordham, NYU, Yale, and University of Haifa law faculties, the journal is the premier source for original articles about tort law and jurisprudence.