Love v. Morehouse College Case Study: Business Law and Negligence

This case study examines the Love v. Morehouse College case, focusing on the legal implications of a student being attacked on campus. The plaintiff, Love, sued Morehouse College for negligence after being assaulted by a fellow student. The court of appeals reviewed the trial court's decision to dism...Read More

Business Law Assignment

Table of Contents
Citation............................................................................................................................................3
Cause of Action...............................................................................................................................3
Facts.................................................................................................................................................3
Issue.................................................................................................................................................4
Held..................................................................................................................................................4
Rule of Law.....................................................................................................................................4
Reasons............................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

Name:
CITATION
LOVE v MOREHOUSE COLLEGE, INC, A071, 1260, (October 5, 2007)
PARTIES
Plaintiff – Love
Defendant – Morehouse College Inc.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Criminal Misconduct
FACTS
In present case, the Love was beaten by the fellow student of the Morehouse with baseball bat in
the premises of the Morehouse. The student attacked on Love because he (Love) was
homosexual and that he looked at him in a wrong manner. Love filed the complaints against the
Morehouse for gross and ordinary negligence, duty in the premises, careless and deliberate
application of demonstrative suffering. On the other hand, Morehouse argued that claim stated in
the filing did not found the presence of legal responsibility towards the Love by the college. The
trial court settled the claim, concluding that although the college has the legal responsibility
towards the Love for rational precaution to safeguard him from harm on property of college, but
the Love is not successful to provide any proof that damage he suffered was predictable.

ISSUE
Whether the trial courts apply the correct standard for determining the appeal to dismiss?
HELD
No, the trial court did not apply the correct standard for determining the appeal. Therefore, the
Love appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint against the Morehouse
for disappointmentof entitlement upon which the relief may be available.
RULE OF LAW
For determination of the problem, the court of appeal is aware of the aspect that the reason of
action is not required for the grievances; it required the claim for assistance (SANDERS, 2008).
If, within the context of grievances, the proof presented by the appellant is connected with
assistance, then in such case the complaint is considered as satisfactory. The same decision was
concluded in case of Gillis v. American Gen. Life etc. Ins. Co (1996). In the present case, the
assertion of the Love must authorize for presenting the proof related with the legal responsibility
of the college towards the students. Along with this, it must be evidenced that the college
breached such duty. Further, the responsibility cannot be separated from the predictability,
however, for establishing the breach of duty related with the principle of conduct, it must be
evidenced that activities which are neglected by the college results in the unreasonable risk.
The Law of the Georgia comprises a provision that, it is the responsibility of the college or the
universities towards the security of the students and they must implement regular and rational
care and take all appropriate steps to safeguard the student from any activities of violence in the
school. In the case of Agnes Scott College v. Clark (2005), some nonstudent committed the

criminal activities in the campus of the school and the university did not has any idea regarding
the presence of nonstudent, and the court held that such crime to be regarded as predictable
(Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005). Further, in the ordinary sense a reasoble person take all the
action for protecting the invitees from the risk related with the criminal activities. For
determining the foreseeability, itis required the attention of the landowner to risky situation
which caused to the filed event.
Along with this, for ascertaining the foreseeability of harm, the precise principle is that, for
aperson to be alleged responsible for negligence, it is not essential that he/she can predict all
specified result. It is enough that if he/she has forecast some injury would outcome from his/her
action or error.
REASONS
In the present case, Love claimed that earlier to this attack, Morehouse has failed to exercise the
reasoble care for safety of the student. There are several students who harassed in the school
because they supposed to be homosexual and they face the surroundings of violence and disgust.
The school did not take any action towards such students who committed such type behavior.
The complaint made by the Love also depicts that at the time when he was beaten by the fellow
student, Morehouse had knowledge regarding many earlier event containing the issue of bias and
homophobia headed on the homosexual student of the college. These assertions are enough an
indication to terminate. However, the complaint of the love expresses harassment, he may be
capable to show the proof representing that activity of the violence is involved in harassment or
it was normally predictable that harassment may lead to violence.

REFERENCES
Court of Appeals of Georgia .DecisionsAgnes Scott College, Inc. v. Clark (2005). Retrived
From< https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2005/a05a0244.html>
SANDERS, S., (2008).Should Colleges Be Sued for Harboring Intolerance?Retrived
From<https://www.chronicle.com/article/Should-Colleges-Be-Sued-for/33813>