Let me get this straight. A dorm room ceiling collapses on a student. The student was academically successful. In fact, she graduates from the university and attends law school. The same student files a personal injury lawsuit against the university for her injuries. The university has a brilliant defense to not paying: She didn’t sustain a serious injury because she had good grades even though she was injured.
It seems like a fictional story or realty show drama. It’s real.
Veronica Couzo, 26, was the former student who filed a personal injury lawsuit against Columbia University. While she was moving into a dorm room on campus, concrete chucks, tiles, and plaster fell onto her head in 2010. Couzo suffered a herniated disk. She sued in 2011 for unspecified damages. In her lawsuit, Couzo claimed the pain prevented her from sleeping. Also, she had to take muscle relaxants for the pain.
In a deposition, she was asked if she had any difficulty with her schoolwork. She answered no. She never let anything affect her academics. She was also asked about her ability to pay attention, take examinations, and earn good grades. She didn’t have trouble doing any of the three things. Columbia argued that, because she received good grades, the roof collapse didn't injure Couzo as much as she claims.
This Lawsuit Isn’t About Intelligence, but Negligence
Couzo alleges the Columbia University was negligent in not maintaining the dorms. Negligence is the failure to use the amount of care a person or organization would in similar circumstances. This case focuses on the school’s failure to maintain a safe environment for students living in the dorms. To win, Couzo has to prove:
- Duty
- Breach of duty
- Cause
- Damages
Duty of care is the responsibility to avoid harming others. The duty exists when there is some kind of relationship between the parties. In this case, a school-student relationship existed because Couzo attended the university.
Duty of care requires exercising care to avoid harm. Columbia University had a responsible to Couzo and other students to make the dorms safe. This means making all needed repairs. It’s not known if the university knew about the condition. However, it’s been documented that other students have complained about moving into a dorm room in disrepair.
The failure to exercise duty occurs in two ways:
- When the party knows it’s putting someone at risk or has reason to believe so
- When a reasonable person or organization in the same or similar situation would have foreseen the risk to students
The school had a duty to maintain the dorms as mentioned. The fact that it didn’t and a student was injured is a clear breach. A breach of duty happens when a party fails to exercise care.
Cause is another personal injury element. It’s basically involves showing who was at the fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Two types of cause exists:
- Cause-in-fact
- Proximate cause
Proximate cause means the plaintiff’s injuries was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. In other words, the defendant didn’t direct cause the injuries, but did something to indirectly cause them.
For Couzo, cause-in-fact is the best way to show the school caused her injuries because of the but-for test. But for Columbia University, she wouldn’t be injured. The school directly caused her herniated disk by not repairing the ceiling.
Damages is the last element a plaintiff needs to prove in a personal injury case. Damages include lost wages, medical bills, and other expenses.
Does Columbia University have a Legal Defense?
No.
A person’s intelligence isn’t a legal defense against being negligent in a personal injury case. Legal defenses to negligence include:
- Comparative negligence
- Contributory negligence
- Proximate cause
- Assumption of the risk
Comparative negligence is a viable defense when the plaintiff negligently acts. The plaintiff’s actions contribute to the injury. Couzo didn’t contribute to her injury. She was moving into a dorm room assigned to her by her school.
Contributory negligence is similar to comparative negligence. A plaintiff negligently acts in the accident and contributes to the injury. However, contributory negligence completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages. This defense only allowed in a small number of states.
Proximate cause defense is used when a defendant acts negligently. The defendant is the obvious and sole cause of the plaintiff’s injury. However, the defendant claims the plaintiff’s injury is unclear. The defense causes the plaintiff to prove how the injury occurred.
Assumption of the risk is the situation was so dangerous that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. This defense is typically used in skydiving or racing events.
Couzo was injured because her dorm’s ceiling hit her on the head. The university is in a tough situation. It must defend itself against harming a student and avoid a PR mess. It seems the university is better off settling this case out-of-court rather than going to trial. Prolonging the case and implying Couzo wasn’t injured because of her academic achievements will damage the university’s image—if it hasn’t already.
Authored by Taelonnda Sewell, LegalMatch Legal Writer
Comments