May 21, 2008

University Ordered to Pay $260,000 in Drinking-Related Death

A jury on Tuesday found that Fairleigh Dickinson University was partially responsible for the death of a student who fell from a fourth-floor dormitory window after drinking heavily. The jury, in a state court in Morris County, N.J., ordered the university to pay $260,000 to the student’s parents, according to The Star-Ledger, a newspaper in Newark, N.J.

Keith Orzech, a 21-year-old junior, fell to his death at the university’s Madison-Florham Park campus in 2005, the newspaper reported. His blood-alcohol level at the time was 0.16, twice the legal limit for driving.

The jury found Mr. Orzech and Fairleigh Dickinson equally at fault for the student’s death. The parents’ lawyer had argued that Fairleigh Dickinson failed to properly enforce its alcohol policies. The university’s policy says students of legal drinking age can drink within limits on the Madison-Florham Park campus, but alcohol is not allowed on its Teaneck campus.

A lawyer for Fairleigh Dickinson said he did not understand how the institution and Mr. Orzech could be equally at fault. The university plans to appeal the decision. —Elyse Ashburn

Comments

1. When the article says students at that campus are allowed to drink “within limits,” I wonder what the limits are. I would be interested to know — does anybody? Does the housing contract state the alcohol policy and provide guidance a to how much alcohol is allowed for students who have reached the age of 21? I am unfamiliar with this type of civil law suit and am wondering what about the campus alcohol policy created a duty upon the school to enforce it? Or does the duty exist in the absence of an alcohol policy in a general “you need to make sure my kid can’t hurt himself” type of theory? If someone knows, that would be great.

   — EAC    May 22, 10:32 AM    #

2. And, of course, the parents bear ZERO responsibility for the student’s first 21 years of life during which he developed bad behaviors.

   — darrell in dallas    May 22, 10:37 AM    #

3. EAC #1 has touched the tip of the iceberg —- the legal implications and the ramifications involved herein are mind-boggling. Just consider the issue of “policy,” per se. —- what are the consequences associated with the unenforcement of a “policy” —- furthermore if a “policy” is “enforced,” —- then what parameters constitute “adequate enforcement?”

   Clearly the information herein is limited —- but I am somewhat puzzled by the following portion of the article (i.e., the last paragraph):

   “A lawyer for Fairleigh Dickinson said he did not understand how the institution and Mr. Orzech could be equally at fault. The university plans to appeal the decision.”

   Is the lawyer implying that the institution is at fault, but the fault of the institution is not equal to the fault of the student? (N.B:- “equally at fault” versus “at fault” —-Is the appeal being based on the degree of fault involved, and as such the size of the associated damages or is the appeal being based on a total denial of fault, and as such, no liabilty/damage whatsoever can be assigned?)

   — zahid    May 22, 11:05 AM    #

4. I have no problem witha policy that allows students of legal age to drink – in their rooms – without offering access to those who are under age.

   However, I don’t see how the university is negligent. They weren’t involved in his decision to drink. Drunk and stupid = high risk.

   — Al    May 22, 11:49 AM    #

5. Impossible to defend.
   Impossible to enforce.
   Impossible to comprehend.
   Impossible to accept.
   Impossible to stop crying.
   Just impossible.

   — marcii    May 22, 12:31 PM    #

6. Talk about bad precedent. There are something like (I think I have this right) 4,000 alcohol related deaths on American campuses annually. If a campus is found liable in the case of a young man of legal drinking age, the liability implications of underage drinking are profound..

   — Patrick Mattimore    May 22, 12:37 PM    #

7. Regardless of whether alcohol consumption is allowed or not on campus, there will most likely be alcohol consumption nearby and this could happen either way. I don’t think the school is at fault, but perhaps it would make parents happy if there were bars on the windows? But then I assume the school would lose points for campus “beauty.”

   People are just foolish.

   — CrysD    May 22, 03:07 PM    #

8. No, #6—there are 36 alcohol-related deaths on campuses each year.
   http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1140106101.html
   Every one is a tragedy, but let’s start with facts.

   — Bob Rosenberg    May 22, 03:59 PM    #

9. This short article is confusing, and it might be the writing and/or limited content that’s the problem. I don’t understand what the parents argued. From the article, it sounds like the court and/or parents think that having a policy, enforcing a policy, and somehow achieving 100% compliance with a policy are the same thing. (They are not.) So, to play out this logic… can I argue that my local police department should pay half my ticket (or better yet, pay me damages if something bad happens) if the state has a rule to not speed, but the police did not follow me around and prevent me from speeding? Does the library have to waive my late fines because it has a rule that I can only keep books for two weeks and yet I kept them for more and they didn’t stop me? Can I charge my landlord some sort of fee if I pay my rent late and he didn’t prevent me from doing so? Either the courts have gotten screwier than unusal, or we don’t have all the facts.

   — HIED doc    May 22, 04:48 PM    #

10. I read some wrongful death appeals in 1994. A common theme in the appeals is the existance of a written policy and a lack of (uniform) enforcement. The courts seem indifferent as to what the policy is, only that it is being followed.

    The view is reasonable that, if the university publishes an alcohol use policy to parents while they are choosing a school, but in fact not enforcing it, it is somehow bad. The mismatch diminishes the parents ability to make a judgement that will work with their situation.

    When systematic and egregious, this mismatch is viewed as something such as fraud, deliberate indifference, or deceptive business practices.

    In these cases, the existance of a pattern is much more important than a single instance.

    Since this is in line with appeals I read 14 years ago, I don’t view it as new.

    As to what is reasonable, I think a fairly simple interpretation is to learn whether or not it is illegal to be drunk in NJ. This varies by state. It seems expected to argue that being legally drunk exceeds “reasonable use”

    — aubrey mcintosh    May 22, 05:18 PM    #

11. To HIED #10 —- You are absolutely right that the information is limited in content and lacking in form —- howsoever, in my opine there are fundamental differences based on legalistic principles —- first and foremost it is not a guideline, it is a policy. As such either the policy should come with a disclaimer (e.g., the aforementioned policy is not enforced, as such we bear no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences resulting from …. ). Additionally, there should be some cautionary warnings (e.g. on coffee cups —- coffee is hot and can burn you)

    Aubrey McIntosh (#10) has addressed the nub of the issue —- stated policy, decision-making reliance on same, no enforcement mechanism, —- tantamounts to deceptive practices —- ergo liability.

    Re: your examples cited —- there is a penalty enforcement mechanicm in place along with the policy/law —- in this case I not sure whether there was any applicable penalty enforcements.

    Apropos, How was the policy enforced (spot checks, random breath analysis, etc.); and If the policy was violated then what were the penalties (fines, expulsion, etc. analogous to tickets, loss of drivers license, etc.). In all the examples which you cited some methodology of enforcement and punishment exists —- however, in the case on hand it appears that there is no enforcement and/or punishment —- this is the crux of the issue (not the actual effectiveness —- which would be nightmare, for the police officer not knowing about a speeding car could become responsible for the accident). Furthermore, I would venture to guess that the policy came with no disclaimers or cautionary warnings.

    For Aubrey McIntosh (#10) —- would like to know your interpretation of the statement by the institution’s attorney (i.e. faulty can’t be equal —- is partial fault being accepted? And, as such a lower level of compensation? (ref: last para or article —- my earlier comment # 3).

    Additionally, legally, wouldn’t a settlement without acknowledging wrongdoing have been the preferred solution?

    — zahid    May 23, 10:46 AM    #

12. There are some excellent points made and very good questions asked here. However, let’s look at this from a legal point of view. Couple that with a societal notion that everything that happens to oneself is ALWAYS someone else’s fault (“victimology”). The end result is that lawyers will follow the “deep pockets” theory: Whoever has the most money (university) is who gets sued. “Victimology” + “deep pockets” = lawsuit everytime. It does not matter who is at fault.

    — L.T.    May 23, 03:44 PM    #

Previous: News Service Picks 'Best Student Journalists'
Next: Washington State U. Proposes Slashing Its Course Offerings