Facts: On June 19, 1978, at approximately 10:00 p.m., the plaintiff, Oscar Whitlock, a 20-year-old college student at the university of Denver, suffered a broken neck that rendered him quadriplegic. He suffered this injury while attempting to complete a one-and-three-quarters front flip on a trampoline that was located on the front lawn of the Beta Theta Pi property, a fraternity on the University of Denver campus. Whitlock was a member of the Beta fraternity and was acting house manager of the house. During the evening of June 18 and the early morning of June 19, 1978, the Beta house was having a party with alcohol. Whitlock attended this party where he consumed beer, vodka, and scotch until 2:00 a.m. After this party, Whitlock went to sleep…show more content… The court concluded that it was a nonfeasance case because of the fact that the university did not take any action to remove the trampoline or to supervise the use of it. In order for a nonfeasance cases to exist there must be a special relationship between parties. Special relationships that have been recognized by various courts include common carrier/passenger, innkeeper/guest, possessor of land/invited entrant, employer/employee, parent/child, and hospital/patient. The court needed to decide whether the University and Whitlock had a special relationship. According to the evidence of the case, there are only two possible sources of special relationship out of which duty can arise: the status of Whitlock as a student, and the lease between the University and the fraternity. The status of Whitlock as a student in the past would have been determined by loco parentis, which “imposed a duty on the college to exercise control over student conduct and gave students certain rights of protection by the college.” Bradshaw, 612 F.2d at 139. However, this rule has changed in modern times. Now, colleges and universities are regarded as educational institutions rather than custodial ones. This means that their purpose is to educate these students in to being mature adults, who will be performing well in civic, community, family, and professional positions. Although the lack of supervision by the University lead to a disastrous result, it is in the public’s interest to have these college students live like a responsible adult and not have to supervise them at all times. The lease was the next item the court determined. The lease states the University can inspect the fraternity and can make repairs, but this does not give rise to liability of the university to the fraternity members or third parties for tort injuries. The University, only once,