## Facts

- Berea College, a private institution, issued student rules governing conduct and discipline.
- In summer 1911, the college adopted a rule barring students from entering Berea “eating houses and places of amusement” not controlled by the college, on penalty of immediate dismissal, stating it provided adequate meals and recreation and would not permit outside solicitation of student patronage for profit.
- J. S. Gott bought and operated a restaurant across from the college around September 1, 1911; the restaurant relied heavily on student customers.
- After the fall term began (September 11, 1911), the college enforced the rule and dismissed several students for patronizing Gott’s restaurant.
- Gott alleged the rule and its enforcement caused substantial loss of business and asserted the college officers maliciously conspired to injure him; he also alleged slander based on claimed statements that he was a “bootlegger.”
- Gott sought injunctive relief and damages; a temporary restraining order issued early in the case, but the trial court ultimately dismissed his petition and dissolved the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether a private college, acting in loco parentis, may lawfully adopt and enforce a rule prohibiting students from entering off-campus eating houses and places of amusement not controlled by the college, with dismissal as the sanction.
2. Whether adoption and enforcement of such a rule, despite foreseeable harm to a nearby restaurant, constitutes an unlawful or malicious conspiracy actionable in equity or tort.
3. Whether the record supported liability for slander based on alleged defamatory statements by college officers.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Gott’s petition and left the college free to enforce the rule.
- The court held the rule was within the college’s authority to govern and discipline students in loco parentis and was not unlawful or contrary to public policy.
- Because the rule was a legitimate disciplinary regulation directed at students, the resulting economic harm to Gott did not make the college’s conduct an actionable conspiracy.
- The slander claim failed for lack of sufficient proof or support in the record to warrant relief.

## Legal Principles

- A private college may regulate and discipline students under an in loco parentis rationale concerning students’ welfare and training.
- Courts generally will not interfere with private institutional rules adopted in good faith for student discipline unless the rules are unlawful or violate public policy.
- Lawful exercise of institutional disciplinary authority is not converted into an unlawful conspiracy merely because it causes economic harm to third parties.
- Defamation liability requires adequate proof of defamatory statements and related harm; unsupported allegations do not justify relief.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a private college’s power to restrict students from patronizing off-campus establishments as a permissible in loco parentis disciplinary measure, rejecting third-party claims for injunctive relief and damages where the rule was lawful and the defamation allegations were not established.


Gott v. Berea Coll., 161 S.W. 204 (Ky. Ct. App. 1913)