References in periodicals archive ?
This Section outlines the multifactor analysis that courts employ to determine whether a duty of care exists outside the context of special relationships, and argues that courts should extend the multifactor analysis to determinations of whether or not to impose a duty based on a special relationship.
Imposing a duty on colleges to protect students against crime on campus is logical for the same reason that it is logical to impose a duty on lessors to protect their lessees against crime in their homes: IHEs and lessors alike are best positioned to provide such security.
Finally, if the Shin and Schieszler foreseeability analysis is enough to impose a duty, it would be just as logical for a court to impose duties to prevent suicide on anyone to whom self-injurious behavior is more clearly foreseeable.
Ultimately, using a single-factor foreseeability analysis to impose a duty on nonclinicians to prevent suicide results in one of two negative consequences: either it produces the anomaly that IHEs are singled out as protectors against foreseeable harm, while those to whom the harm is more clearly foreseeable are deemed not to owe a duty; or it produces a generally-applicable foreseeability rule that runs counter to tort law's entire treatment of affirmative duties and the modern conception of the role of an IHE.
And while the side deals impose a duty to enforce laws, they contain nothing that would prevent a country from changing or repealing laws if it wanted to.