## Facts

- Parents of a 17-year-old female student enrolled at the University of Cincinnati sued the university and several employees.
- The parents alleged the defendants allowed the student to associate with criminals, be seduced, and become a drug user.
- The parents alleged the defendants permitted the student to be absent from her dormitory and refused to return her to her parents’ custody upon demand.
- The parents framed the claims as negligence in supervision and control and invoked Ohio statutes on campus “law and order” and contributing to a child’s delinquency.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether a university and its employees owe a legal duty to regulate, supervise, or control students’ private lives, movements, and associations, including those of a minor student, such that failure to prevent harmful private conduct constitutes negligence.
2. Whether R.C. 3345.21 (campus “law and order”) or R.C. 2151.41 (contributing to delinquency) creates a civil duty requiring a university to control a student’s private conduct or return a minor student to her parents upon demand.
3. Whether immunity barred the claims, if a duty otherwise existed.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held no Ohio law imposed on a university or its employees a duty to regulate students’ private lives, control their comings and goings, or supervise their associations.
- The court held the cited statutes did not apply to the alleged facts and did not create the duty asserted by the parents.
- Because the absence of duty was dispositive, the court did not reach immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence requires a legally recognized duty; absent such a duty, allegations of nonfeasance do not state a claim.
- A university is not a custodial institution charged with comprehensive parental control over students’ personal affairs merely because students live in university housing or are enrolled.
- The university–student relationship, without more, does not create an affirmative duty to monitor and prevent a student’s private associations and conduct.
- Statutory provisions addressing campus order or criminal delinquency do not, without clear legislative direction, impose a civil duty to control students’ private behavior or to deliver a student to parents on demand.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the parents’ negligence claims, holding that the university owed no general duty to supervise and control a student’s private life and that the cited Ohio statutes did not create the asserted obligation to police the student’s conduct or return her to parental custody.


Hegel v. Langsam, 29 Ohio Misc. 147, 273 N.E.2d 351 (C.P. Hamilton Cnty. 1971)