## Facts

- Oscar Whitlock, a 20-year-old University of Denver student, was a member and acting house manager of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity.
- The University owned the land on which the fraternity house sat and leased the premises to the fraternity’s local chapter house association.
- The fraternity owned a trampoline placed on the front lawn of the leased fraternity property.
- On June 19, 1978, around 10:00 p.m., Whitlock attempted a “one-and-three-quarters front flip” on the trampoline in low-light conditions and suffered a paralyzing injury resulting in quadriplegia.
- Whitlock had substantial prior trampoline experience and had successfully performed the same maneuver many times before the accident.
- Whitlock had been drinking alcohol earlier that day and used the trampoline multiple times before the injury.
- Whitlock settled with other defendants; the negligence claim against the University proceeded to trial.
- A jury found total damages of $7.3 million, allocating 72% fault to the University and 28% to Whitlock; the trial court entered judgment consistent with comparative fault.
- The trial court later granted the University’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; the court of appeals reinstated the jury’s verdict.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted review on whether the University owed Whitlock a duty to take reasonable measures to protect him from unsafe trampoline use under these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether a university owes an affirmative duty to protect an adult student from injuries arising from the student’s voluntary use of fraternity-owned recreational equipment located at a fraternity house leased from the university.
2. Whether the university’s role as landowner/lessor and its relationship with the student and fraternity created sufficient control or a special relationship to impose a duty to supervise, regulate, or prevent the activity.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held the University owed no duty of care to Whitlock under these facts.
- The court reversed the court of appeals and directed remand with instructions to dismiss Whitlock’s complaint against the University.
- Because the absence of duty was dispositive, the court did not resolve comparative negligence allocation or causation questions.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires a duty; absent duty, a claim fails regardless of foreseeability or fault allocation.
- An affirmative duty to protect another from harm typically arises only from a recognized special relationship or comparable basis for imposing protective obligations.
- The modern university–adult student relationship is generally educational rather than custodial and does not, by itself, create an affirmative duty to supervise or control students’ private recreational choices.
- A landowner/lessor is not ordinarily liable for injuries tied to activities or instrumentalities on leased premises when the lessor does not retain possession or sufficient control over the premises, the activity, or the instrumentality.
- Policy considerations may weigh against imposing broad institutional duties that would effectively require universities to supervise adult students’ private conduct in noncustodial settings.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the University of Denver had no legal duty to protect an adult student from injuries sustained while using a fraternity-owned trampoline on leased fraternity premises, and it ordered dismissal of the negligence claim against the University.


Univ. of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54 (Colo. 1987)