## Facts

- Hollie M. Williams, a Utica College undergraduate, lived in North Hall, an on-campus dormitory.
- Around late morning on October 26, 1999, Williams and her roommate returned to their room and left the door slightly ajar while preparing food.
- A masked man entered, locked the door, displayed a gun, and assaulted both students.
- The assailant was never identified; neither student recognized him.
- Utica’s dorm policy required exterior doors to remain locked except a “breezeway” door that was to be continuously staffed by student workers to monitor entry.
- Williams and her roommate testified no monitor was present at the breezeway when the assault occurred; a residence-life administrator could not confirm staffing that day.
- Utica offered evidence that most prior campus crimes involved resident students rather than outside intruders.
- Because the attacker’s identity and method of entry were unknown, the record contained no direct proof that he entered through an unmonitored exterior door rather than as a student or lawful entrant.

## Issues

1. Whether Utica College owed a duty under New York premises-liability law to take reasonable precautions to protect dorm residents from foreseeable third-party criminal acts.
2. Whether the evidence created a triable question that Utica breached that duty by failing to implement its stated security measures (including continuous monitoring of the breezeway entrance).
3. Whether Williams produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that any security lapse by Utica was a proximate cause of the assault, rather than a speculative possibility among competing explanations.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Utica College.
- The court held the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the assault was unforeseeable and that Utica’s security measures were necessarily adequate.
- The court held Williams failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Utica’s alleged negligence more likely than not caused the assault.
- Because causation rested on speculation about the attacker’s identity and entry route, the case could not proceed to trial despite triable questions on duty and breach.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, landowners must take at least minimal reasonable precautions to protect occupants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal acts by third parties.
- Foreseeability does not require prior identical crimes; it may be assessed from the total circumstances, including a property owner’s own security policies and the general risk of criminal activity.
- Whether precautions are reasonable is commonly a fact question and should not be resolved on summary judgment when evidence permits competing conclusions about the adequacy of security measures.
- Proximate causation requires evidence permitting a reasonable inference of a causal sequence; it is insufficient to show only that defendant’s negligence could have caused the injury.
- When multiple non-negligent explanations remain equally plausible, a jury may not be permitted to guess which explanation is more likely.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit concluded that a jury could find Utica owed a duty to protect dorm residents from foreseeable criminal conduct and could dispute whether the college followed reasonable security practices, but the absence of non-speculative proof that an unmonitored entrance enabled the attacker required affirmance of summary judgment for lack of causation.


Williams v. Utica Coll. of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2006)