Don't know what to do...

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahmee204

New Member
My son (17 yrs. old) was given alcohol by students while he was in college. We live in Louisiana. He was attending in Tennessee. We received a phone call at 1:40a.m. informing us that our son was being transported to Tennesse Metro Hospital because he had so much to drink. His level was three times above the legal limit. The college was supposed to house him on campus instead they put him in a an extended stay hotel with 19-21 year olds. We have, of course, signed him out of that college but the college doesn't seem to care about what happened to him.
Yes, we did pay for a dorm. We had made arrangements before we left our son there for a dorm room. When the housing director spoke to my son about moving from the extended stay hotel (15-20 minutes away from campus with absolutely no security) she said that my son didn't feel he needed to be in the dorms and that, if she were to put him in a dorm room, she would be "doing me a favor and giving someone else's room to him." She didn't think that was fair. Today I called the college back regarding the student loans, etc. They are saying we owe over $3000 in expenses for room & board! Being from Louisiana, I don't know what to do. I just can't see them getting away with this. The "head director" of the college met with us before we left and told us that "they have nothing to do with the students they put up in the extended stay hotels no matter what the age of the student. There is no such policy in place and because it (the hotel) isn't their property, they don't need to provide security or supervision for any of the students housed there." I'm at my wits end. Not only do we have the college bill to pay, we have the hospital bill as well! The college never even contacted us AT ALL about what had happened. I had to call them when I got to the hospital to tell them what had happened. NO ONE KNEW! We are very frustrated and don't know what to do. Help!
 
Last edited:
The school is not responsible for your son drinking so much alcohol... only he is.
The hospital bill is his responsibility. As for where he was housed, you would have to review whatever documentation you have to find out if there has been a breech of contract. If so... then you MIGHT be able to come up with an argument to get you off the hook for the $3000 they want to collect. If not, it was his own action and your intervention that got him out of the school. Let him go spend a few years in Afghanistan with the Marines to earn his own college moeny and pay you back.
 
I understand that he made the choice to drink it! The point is, if he had not been put in that situation, i.e., housed on campus, THAT situation and the decision to drink alcohol or not would not have happened. As for as I know, and no, I'm not a lawyer obviously, contributing to the deliquency of a minor IS illegal. If ALL the blame were to be placed on the minor, there would be no such law necessary. You are really missing the point here. It isn't about money, it is about responsibility and the trust that parents put in the powers that be when leaving their child in the care of the school. There were at least 10 other minors housed at this place who were also given alcohol. As for the "Afganistan" comment, he did want to join the military. He is physically disabled and was not able to join. But thanks for the help.
 
You have a case. Contact a lawyer. The school owes you a duty being that he is a minor and they are in loco parentis to that child. When your lawyer contacts their legal department their attitude will change dramatically. Believe me I know. There should also be a criminal complaint filed. Someone supplied your son with Alcohol, whether it was a liquor store (who could also be liable for damages) or older students who bought and gave to him (also liable for damages). You have several streams of liability. Your son's participation is what is called "contributory negligence" but you are correct, the fact that he is under age mitigates even that to an extent.

The college is being negligent of their duty by putting (especially underage students) out that far on their own. Get a lawyer and don't worry about the ones that want to blame it all on your son.

That having been said, I hope your son learned a valuable lesson by almost dying. Good luck.
 
JHarris, thank you for giving solid advice. And yes, my son did learn his lesson. It may seem strange to say this but, he actually has been traumatized by this. He stays in his room, doesn't want to go anywhere, doesn't want to be with "people." Frustration and pain doesn't even begin to describe how this has affected our family as a whole. I can't imagine another family going through this. THAT is the principle truly at question here.
Again, thank you. I have been trying to locate an attorney in Tennessee but, it isn't that easy. I'm thinking of calling the D.A.'s office.
 
mightymoose said:
The school is not responsible for your son drinking so much alcohol... only he is.
The hospital bill is his responsibility. As for where he was housed, you would have to review whatever documentation you have to find out if there has been a breech of contract. If so... then you MIGHT be able to come up with an argument to get you off the hook for the $3000 they want to collect. If not, it was his own action and your intervention that got him out of the school. Let him go spend a few years in Afghanistan with the Marines to earn his own college moeny and pay you back.
Click to expand...

You sound like a very bitter person. I will pray for you. I'm glad you're not a doctor.:no:
 
The school is not responsible for the alcohol, and did not contribute to the delinquency of anyone. If you could find out who provided the alcohol then you could argue that point. The only liability the school has is in regard to whatever the contract over housing says. Regardless, your son was withdrawn from the school voluntarily, and if money was owed to the school for anything then they may still be able to collect it. The school usually has well established deadlines for withdrawing.
 
I'm someone who deals with drunk people and drug addicts on a regular basis that blame other people for their actions and poor decisions. It's a tired story.
Your son is lucky he got to go to the hospital instead of jail.
I think your argument is off base trying to cast blame on the school over the alcohol. That part is entirely on your son.
The focus should be on any breach of contract over where he was to be housed. Do you have anything that specifies where he was supposed to be, or anything that addresses special considerations due to his age?
 
Moose, you are WAY off base. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but this kid is a MINOR who is suppose to be a DORM student and does not have a history of alcohol abuse. The college certainly has a responsibility to the parents who paid to have him in a dorm. I'm not saying that the kid has no responsibility, but the fact that he is 17 and the school is in loco parentis to the child is a BIG deal. Go a little easier on them.
 
Well I don't think it is clear if the parents paid for "housing" or if the parents paid specifically for a dorm. Regardless of where the boy was to live, the school has nothing to do with his personal choice to drink alcohol. Sure there is an argument to be made about someone providing alcohol to minors... but not against the school. That is absurd. If a kid uses drugs and drops on the campus sidewalk in seizures is the school responsible for that? No...
What if he was living in the dorm but went to the other location and still did the same thing? Still going to blame the school? From what has been stated, the only complaint against the school would be in regard to any specific living arrangements that were promised and not provided.

Does loco parentis extend beyond public schools? It doesn't seem appropriate in this situation.
 
I don't think I could have been any clearer. Yes, WE PAID FOR ON CAMPUS DORMITORY HOUSING. He has NO history of alcohol/drug abuse; first time away from home...Moose, maybe you've been dealing with the bad side of the law for so long that you can't see the forest for the trees. You're jaded, my friend. You may not believe this but there STILL ARE SOME FAMILIES IN AMERICA WHO ARE JUST AVERAGE, GOOD, HARDWORKING, TIGHT-KNIT FAMILIES! We ARE the "Cleavers."
 
I didn't say there was anything wrong with your family or with your son... I simply said he is responsible for his own actions. He is 17, not 7. He knows what alcohol is and chose to drink it.
The school didn't give it to him and has zero responsibility over it.

Yes, you said that you paid for a dorm, but as I said initially, a review of the documentation would have to be done to determine exactly what you paid for versus what you believe you paid for, and also to see if there are any special provisions due to his age.

Regardless of where he was supposed to live, your son, and only your son, is responsible for his consumption of alcohol and the results. The individual that gave him the alcohol, if in fact a person did offer it to him, did commit a crime, but that person didn't force it down his throat. If your son obtained the alcohol without permission, without anyone else's knowledge, or by misrepresentation of his age, then it is all on him.
 
I give up. You must not have children of your own...If what you're saying is true, why waist the time and money to put a law on the books meant to protect kids from underage drinking. Basically, you can say that about every incident of underage drinking. There were over 5 kids who were given alcohol at that "block party" that went on there.
 
Last edited:
The law isn't a waste, but it is difficult to enforce. My point is that the school is not responsible here, and that it seems there is no evidence to support a charge against someone that may have provided the alcohol.
I agree that you might have an argument with the school if you can prove that a dorm was paid for and the hotel situation was a breach of contract, but you have no way to tie in the alcohol incident to the breach of contract. They are separate.
 
Harris is probably right, but there is one thing that concerns me here. In a negligence case you have to prove that there was a duty and it was breached, but you also have to prove that the breach was the proximate cause of injury. In other words, could this just as easily have happened on campus. It's certainly possible to make a causality argument, but I think it would be difficult to meet your burden.
 
I think I should expand my cause argument a bit, because it could help clear some things up for this poster and those lurking in the shadows looking for answers. And since I am sitting here getting over the flu, I've got some extra time.

A negligence action has 4 basic elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. Ahmee I think there is no question that your son has sustained an injury. And I think Harris is right that there is probably enough there to suggest that the school breached a duty, at least considering the fact that your son is 17.

Causation is where this case fails. Every law student reads a case in first year torts that irons out this whole proximate cause thing. The name of the case escapes me, but it goes a little something like this:

A guy is driving down the road, approaching a railroad crossing. To his right is a large building, blocking his view of the tracks. The little poles that indicate a train is coming and prevent motorists from crossing the tracks at that point come down. Driver thinks he can make it, goes around the barrier, and is hit by a speeding train, killing him. The family brings a wrongful death suit against the train company--a negligence claim.

The court found that this train had clearly breached a duty. It was traveling something like 60 MPH when he was supposed to be travelling 30. Where this case failed, however, is on cause. The court held that the train's speed was not the cause of this accident. Now, it is and it isn't. The speed DID cause the accident because had it not been speeding, the train wouldn't have made it to the intersection until minutes after the motorist had safely crossed the tracks.

The speed was not a proximate cause of the accident though. When looking at proximate cause, you narrow the scope of the event. The court said something like this: a train is coming, and the barriers go down, someone tries to cross anyway. Does it matter whether the train was speeding or not that the motorist was killed? No. Because for the barrier to go down a train would have to be close enough to hit the car anyway, and even if the train were going 30, the motorist would have been killed.

In your case, Ahmee, I think you fail on the proximate cause argument as well. What is the injury here? Not that your son had a drink. The injury is that he drank so much that he had to have his stomach pumped. So then let's narrow the scope of the event, and decide whether the schools actions were the proximate cause of his injury.

He takes a drink. Not injured. But from this point forward, to the time that he needs his stomach pumped, has the school done something that caused the injury?

He's at the hotel and someone gives him a drink. Does he still continue drinking to the point he needs medical care? yes.
He's at a dorm and someone gives him a drink, does he still continue drinking to the point he needs medical care? probably, because from the time he took his first drink, to the time he became injured, the school's actions were not the proximate cause. If his injury were from that first drink then I think you would have a much better shot, but because it is from the compounding alcoholic beverages, I think this case is a long shot at best. That said, I have been wrong before.

I hope everything works out for you.
 
VERY NICE Negligence primer NY, and yes I'm being serious. I hope you get over the flu, that sucks. I still think there is liability for the school. I agree that there is contributory negligence and even more importantly there is liability for whoever gave him the alcohol (especially if they are of legal age) and if they are not there is liability for the liquor store that sold the alcohol to underage minors.

I think this falls under strict liability. For those of you at home playing "lets be a lawyer today" :) that means that you are doing something that is inherently full of risk and you are pretty much screwed if something goes wrong. The schools whole job in life is providing for students. They get paid to do this.

They had a duty to provide safe housing. There contract was with the MOM and DAD not the Minor student. Thus, when they ran out of "safe" dorm rooms they approached the MINOR to modify that contract and give him the opportunity to "live on his own in a hotel." Now you and I are adults, as are his parents. Do you think any adult or (reasonable man) (more legal theory for the students out there) would chose to put their 17 year old boy or girl in an unsupervised HOTEL with several other unsupervised college students?

That sounds like a bit of silliness to me. This school had several duties to the PARENTS, one of which was the in loco parentis duty of taking care of a minor. That is a duty that falls under strict liability. If I were to take care of my neighbor's son and they asked to play with my .357 Peace Keeper would I be liable if I said, yes? Of course I would. Even if they took it somewhere and INTENTIONALLY shot themselves.

There is very little "safe harbor" (more legalese) when you are caring for a minor. I think this would be much clearer if it was a girl (unfortunately we feel they need more protection than boys). Lets say you sent your 17 year old girl to school to live in a DORM where it is administered. They run out of room and without telling you let her make the decision to move to a (school paid) HOTEL with several other college students. She participates in drinking (illegally) and gets raped. Is that a foreseeable danger? Of course it is.

The school is liable as hell in my opinion. What do you think now NY?
 
The school's placement of the kid in a hotel is not what caused him to drink. He did that all on his own, and he could have done it regardless of where he lived.

The school is not paid to be a babysitter for the kid. It did its part to provide adequate housing. Would we be holding the school responsible if the kid went and robbed the liquor store across the street from the hotel? He certainly wouldn't have done it if he had been supervised in the dorm, right?

Unless there is something in the documentation that specifically says the kid was entitled to a dorm room, and unless there is something that can be shown that the school acted outside of policy and was negligent by placing the kid in the hotel when a dorm was not available, then there is no liability on the school.

I would bet that the procedure for placing students when dorm space is not available is somewhere within documentation signed, received, and consented to by the parents.
 
You guys just aren't getting that HE IS A MINOR!!!!! The school is liable just as the PARENTS would be liable if he did it at home. The school had a DUTY to supervise him because he was a minor and the parents turned him over to the school in loco parentis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top