RUNNING HEAD: CASE CLOSED 1

Case Closed: Beach v. University of Utah

and the Impact on Higher Education

Hannah Davis

Arizona State University

 2

For decades, safety and liability have been negotiated elements of educational endeavors.

From field trips to group socials, the liability of the educational institution and the responsibility

of the student are not always clear. As an aspiring administrator in student services, the safety

and well-being of students, and the legal parameters that go with it, are challenging to decipher.

Several court cases across the United States have clarified the policies for students, staff and

faculty.

In Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413 (Utah, 1986), a college student’s horrific

accident brought to light the need for the rules and regulations to be clarified. Danna Beach was

a twenty-year old student who attended the University of Utah (Kozlowski, 1987, p.1). In 1979,

she was enrolled in a field biology course taught by Orlando Cuellar, a tenured professor

(Kozlowski, 1987, p.1). As Kozlowski (1987) explained,

The biology class required students to attend three one-day field trips and three weekend

field trips. Before the first trip, Cuellar instructed his students that they must follow his

directions during class time but were free to pursue personal interests when the day's

work was completed. Students were urged to drop the class if the field trips posed any

physical or other problems for them (p.1).

The final class trip of the course was to the Deep Creek mountains of Utah (Kozlowski,

1987, p.1). During the overnight trip, Beach consumed excessive amounts of alcohol during the

group dinner (Kozlowski, 1987, p.1). Later that evening, Beach fell off the cliff near the

campsite and “as a result of injuries sustained in her fall, Beach [became] a quadriplegic with

some limited use of her arms” (Kozlowski, 1987, p.2)

 3

When Beach sued, the court deferred judgement to the University (Kozlowski, 1987,

p.1). This is a typical occurrence, since “congress was deferential to higher educational

institutions and intended that courts should be deferential as well” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p.73).

Beach then appealed to the Supreme Court of Utah (Kozlowski, 1987, p.1).

Beach’s main argument was that the professor who planned and facilitated the trip,

Cuellar, was responsible for her safety and well-being. Specifically, Beach believed that by

Cuellar being her professor supported that idea that they were in a “Special Relationship,” where

he was responsible for her (Kozlowski, 1987, p.1). “Special Relationships” require one party to

be dependent on the other, or each other (Kozlowski, 1987, pp. 2-3). Examples of Special

Relationships are “common carriers and passengers [i.e. buses, airplanes, trains, etc.], employers

and employees, owners and invitees, and parents and children” (Kozlowski, 1987, p. 3).

The following facts led to the outcome of the case stated by Kozlowski (1987):

 At the time of the Deep Creek mountains of Utah field trip, Beach had attended other

field trips and had no major incidents (p. 3).

 Cuellar did not know that Beach had been drinking and did not force her to drink the

alcohol provided at the dinner (pp. 3-4).

 Cuellar had been drinking during the dinner (pp. 3-4).

 Beach’s behavior was normal and she did not appear intoxicated (p. 4).

Below are Beach’s arguments as to why the University and Cuellar should be held liable for her

injuries stated by Kozlowski (1987):

 Cuellar did not provide camping safety instructions as required by the University's

regulations on student safety and this resulted in Beach’s injuries (p. 4).
 4

 Cuellar knew or should have known that Beach’s drinking would lead to

disorientation, confusion, trouble with walking, etc. (p. 3).

 The University was required to supervise Beach at all times (p. 3).

 Cuellar should not have consumed alcohol at a University function (p. 4).

All of Beach’s arguments were refuted by members of the Utah Supreme Court. While

Cuellar facilitated the trip, he was not required by the University to supervise the students

routinely (such as searching belongings for alcohol and drugs, completing “bed checks,”

implementing buddy system, etc.) since the students were all consenting, legal adults who

attended the trip on their own free will. Cuellar did not force Beach to drink the alcohol and is

not required to enforce the Utah drinking laws. The Utah Supreme Court stated, “colleges and

universities are educational institutions, not custodian,” meaning that Universities are not

required to ”babysit each [adult] student, [which is] a task beyond the resources of any school”

(Kozlowski, 1987, p. 5).

Since Cuellar and the University did everything reasonably required to ensure the safety

and well being of the students, Beach could not prove that the University of Utah was liable for

her injuries. The Utah Supreme Court ruled that the University of Utah “breached no duty to

Beach” (Kozlowski, 1987, p. 5).

Beach v. University of Utah demonstrated a shift in mindset of how college students were

defined. In the 60’s and 70’s, college students were demanding more student rights from the

institutions, the local governments, and their parents; revolutions were taking place all over the

United States (Carroll & Lee, 2019). In the 80’s when the case occurred, “society considered the

modern college student an adult, not a child of tender years” (Carroll & Lee, 2019). This case

become physical evidence of the change in Higher Education for how students are valued, heard,
 5

and respected. Currently, if a case arose with similar circumstances presented in Beach v.

University of Utah and was presented to the Supreme Court of Arizona, society, administrators

from the university, faculty, staff, and students would be shocked at the student’s lack of

personal accountability and at the expectations for supervision set by the student.

Faculty and staff at Higher Education Institutions should be able to host events, facilitate

field trips, sponsor clubs, and other endeavors without worrying about being forced to act in loco

parentis (assume the role of a parent/guardian). As an aspiring Student Services administrator

who wants to promote activities and practices for enhancing student engagement, success, and

retention, it’s important to know where the line is drawn for student’s personal liability.

This case has, and continues to, affect staff in student services, teaching faculty, and other

stakeholders that regularly interact with students. While Higher Education institutions should

take reasonable measures to protect the students, the student is a legal adult who is responsible

for his or her own actions, has the freedom to do those actions (even if it is unsafe and/or illegal)

and possibly face ramifications. Beach v. University of Utah and other similar cases help Higher

Education stakeholders ensure the safety and well-being of their students while protecting their

own staff and faculty.

 6

References

Carroll, J., & Li, C. (2019). Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413 (1986). Retrieved from

http://www.ecases.us/case/utah/c1374513/beach-v-university-of-utah

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2014). The Law of Higher Education, 5th Edition: Student Version.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kozlowski, J. (1987). Must University Present Camper’s Alcohol Consumption on Field Trip?

George Mason University Law Review. Retrieved from

http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/lawarts/04APR87.pdf