OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Washington State University had no duty to protect a student who was sexually assaulted at an off-campus house in Pullman, despite the school knowing of the suspect’s past behavior.
23-year-old Thomas Culhane was a former student at WSU’s Vancouver campus and while he was there, two students filed complaints against him.
One woman complained that he “sent her sexual comments via electronic communication.” While another student said that while they were on a university bus together, he sat next to her and “put his hands on and between her legs. He continued even when she told him to stop.”
During an investigation for these incidents, Culhane requested to transfer to the Pullman, which was granted. On Aug. 1, 2017 he was suspended for nine days and assigned to write a paper on his understanding of consent.
According to court documents, Culhane and a woman attended an off-campus party in Pullman in August 2017. The woman said that she was intoxicated to the “point at which she was struggling to stand and speak.”
That night Culhane allegedly sexually assaulted her at which she began to yell for help. But according to documents, he wrapped his hands around her neck which caused her to lose consciousness. The victim woke up the next morning and told her friends what occurred.
In 2019, Culhane was found guilty for second-degree rape and was sentenced to nine months in jail. After the sentencing, his charges were reduced after he pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit rape.
The student sued the school stating that the university had knowledge of the multiple sexual assault complaints made against Culhane. She says that WSU did not intervene when they knew his prior history.
In 2021, a federal judge ruled that WSU had no duty to intervene in this off-campus crime. But the female student appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The question asked to the Washington Supreme Court asked:
“Does Washington law recognize a special relationship between a university and its students giving rise to a duty to use reasonable care to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of other students?”“If the answer to question 1 is yes, what is the measure and scope of that duty?”
To answer the first question, the court decided that although there is a special relationship between a university and its students, that duty is limited to when a student is on-campus for school related purposes or participating in a school activity.
The court states, “While sexual assaults are horrific, a university simply has no power to dictate students’ movements off campus and away from the oversight of campus security and administration… The duty exists where a student is on campus, similar to a business invitee. The measure and scope of the duty is based on a student’s enrollment and presence on campus or participation in university controlled activities.”
In the ruling, five justices agreed that the university could not have predicted or controlled Culhane’s actions and had no responsibility to protect students during off-campus crimes or matters.
Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis was one who did not follow the majority agreement within the court.
According to our partners at The Spokesman-Review, Montoya-Lewis wrote “In light of our robust knowledge around the dangers university students are facing and the response by some universities, reducing the relationship to that between a business owner and a business invitee, as the majority opinion does, would excuse universities from accountability and would be inconsonant with the reality of the college experience and universities’ roles in students’ lives.”
