I doubt strict liability is triggered here. Strict liability is not triggered every time a minor is involved, but rather when the actions of the defendant are abnormally dangerous. Typically this is only in product liability cases, or if a neighbor owns a wild tiger or something. Obviously that begs the question of whether putting the kid in a hotel is abnormally dangerous, but I just don't see it. When I was an undergrad the Hilton down the street harbored many first year students from a few different schools that were out of dormitory space. On the other hand, my school refused to do this. So maybe there is a reason to think that it is a bad idea. But abnormally dangerous, I just don't think so. I'm also not so convinced that the kid was unsupervised. Were there RA's in the hotel? A resident director? Did campus police make rounds through the hotel? Also, who discovered that he was so inebriated? If it were an agent of the school, it might hamper the argument that he was unsupervised.
In the end there is only one way to find out. But suffice it to say, if I were counsel for the school I would not be too worried.
In the end there is only one way to find out. But suffice it to say, if I were counsel for the school I would not be too worried.
