Recent Cases Summer 2019 Defense Comment iii relationship existed between the University and its students. On every campus there will be people who arementallyunstable,coupledwiththeriskofviolence toothers. Universitiesnowfaceexposureforsuchrisks, which could be a large exposure. UCLA in this case took many measures to try to address the situation with Thompson’s mental problems. The question is whether those were enough. That will be decided at the trial. UNIVERSITIES; STUDENTS; NEGLIGENCE; DUTY University of Southern California v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 429; 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 FACTS: SAE was a fraternity which had its house slightlyoffcampusatUSC. USChadapolicygoverning alcohol in fraternities. It required that the fraternity obtain authorization before hosting a social event where alcohol was being served. SAE had violated these rules in the past. On the evening in question, a large party with more than 200 people was being held at the house. Plaintiff was a student at Loyola Marymount. Before coming to the party, she consumed cocaine and several alcoholic drinks. After arriving at the party (which was described as “crazy”), she continued to drink alcohol. A seven-foot-high “platform” had been erected at the house for dancing purposes. Somepeopleweredancingontheplatform when plaintiff climbed up. She was bumped off by another girl dancing on the platform. Plaintiff fell and wasseverelyinjured. USCPolice(DPS)visitedtheparty during its progress and cautioned against excessive drinking, but they did not shut it down. Plaintiff sued for her injuries. The trial court denied USC’s motion for summary judgment. USC petitioned for a writ. APPELLATECOURTDECISION:Writissuedtocompel the granting of summary judgment for USC. USC owes no duty to plaintiff. While USC may have a duty to its own students who are injured during curricular activities,itowesnodutytoplaintiffherewhowasnot a student at USC. Furthermore, USC has no duty to protect people who are injured at off campus social events, as distinguished from in the classroom or at curricular activities. The fact that the police visited the house and knew that SAE was in violation of USC’s policy on alcohol and did not shut the party down does not change the result. COMMENT: A key aspect of this decision is not only that plaintiff was not a USC student, but also the event occurred off campus and at a social event, as distinguishedfromintheclassroomandatacurricular event. Query: if the party had occurred at a fraternity which was on campus, might the result be different sinceargumentcouldbemadethattheUniversityhad “control” over events in the house if the house was on University property? LANDOWNER LIABILITY; DUTY; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS; PRIVETTE RULE Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 381, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 FACTS AND HOLDING: This case is a “revisit” to the original decision was reported last year. The case arises on very complicated facts and concerns liability of an “owner” when an employee of another contractor is injured on the job. It involves the Privette doctrine which normally says that the owner is not liable unless the owner “retained control,” meaning affirmatively contributed to the circumstances of the accident. The original decision had been a very pro-defense, pro-Privette decision. This decision turns that around and holds that the owner in this case knew of the dangers of certain electrical work that was going to be conducted, failed to warn of such dangers, had people on the job at the time of the incident, and the evidence sufficiently showed failures to take steps or have actual steps taken which affirmatively contributed to the accident. The case is highly fact-specific and, therefore, will probably not greatly impact the pro-defense holdings of Privette and its progeny which insulate an owner who merely retains many people down the line to take care of details on the job, including compliance with safety regulations. Thisparticularowner,however,wasmuch more deeply involved. RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT; CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS; CLASS ACTIONS Kohler Co. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 55, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 FACTSANDHOLDING:ThisAppellateCourtindicates that it will be very difficult for plaintiffs to proceed in class action status when suing under the Right to Repair Act. this case continued from page ii