Campbell II, Mark 3/3/15

Foster v. Bd. of Trustees of Butler Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 771 F. Supp. 1118, 1119 (D. Kan. 1991)
Campbell II, 1/20/15 (32)
University Liability for Student Injuries
Summary
A personal injury occurred in March 22nd,1987 in which involved Christopher Foster. Mr.
Foster was a passenger in a vehicle accident that occurred at an intersection close to Butler
County Community. The vehicle was driven by George Johnson in which he was in transit to the
National Junior College Basketball Tournament Game. The accident occurred in a collision with
George Clark, who at the time was a high-school senior from Ohio, visiting Kansas on a
recruitment visit to Butler County Community College. Mr. Clark was a recruit of head coach
Randy Smithson who was taking Mr. Clark to the aforementioned basketball game. Randy
Smithson had previously taken recruits to the same game. As a result of the collision, George
Johnson died due to his injuries. Both Foster and Clark were also injured by the accident. Mr.
Johnson had previously picked up Clark from the Wichita airport.
The jury found George Clark 10% fault of the collision and Christopher Foster 90%.
Additionally, the jury found that Johnson was acting in his capacity as an employee of Butler
County Community College when the accident occurred. Lastly, this case focuses on lawyer fees
in regards to the settlement of the case and how the lawyers for each firm will be paid.
Case Law/Regulations/Statutes
Heist v. Jacob, 627 F.Supp. 224 (S.D.Ohio 1985); In re Agent Orange Product Liability
Litigation, 611 F.Supp. 1452 (E.D.N.Y.1985), rev'd, 818 F.2d 216 (2d Cir.)
Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. CPC Acquisition Co., 863 F.2d 251, 256 (2d Cir.1988)
Legal Issues
The legal issues present in this case are lawyer fees and university liability concerning
injuries taking place on campus. Additionally, the case provided insight into the doctrine of
ancillary jurisdiction covering lawyers fees in cases. Previously, state law of Kansas was
inconclusive in determining whether to grant or deny ancillary jurisdiction.
Implications
The case set a precedence on the acclamation of lawyers fees and payment of lawyers
fees. Furthermore, the case decided state law in accordance on the doctrine of ancillary
jurisdiction regarding lawyers fees in cases. Lastly, it establishes the role of an institution and its
employees concerning liability. Employees and institutio ns can be liable if an employee is acting
within the scope of their position.