Sanders, Tyler

2/18/2015
EDLD 6590
Jain v. State, 617 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2000)
Student Suicide
Summary
On November 20th, 1994, Sanjay Jain committed suicide in his residence hall room at the
University of Iowa. Sanjay had previously been documented by staff for mental health issues and
he had stated he would be seeking counseling. While staff knew of this incident, Sanjays parents
believed that all was going well on campus. After an evening of drinking until the bars closed,
Sanjay returned to his room with a concerned friend whom he convinced to retire. The next
morning, Sanjay was found unconscious with his moped running in his room. The case, being
pursued by the father of the deceased, looks at the universitys duty to inform and negligence to
take action that led to a wrongful death action against the university. District and Supreme Courts
found the university owed no duty to the parents or student in this case.
Case Law/Regulations/Statutes
1. Red Giant Oil Co. v. Lawlor, 528 N.W.2d 524, 528 (Iowa 1995)
2. Cutler v. Klass, Whicher, & Mishne, 473 N.W.2d 178, 182 (Iowa 1991)
3. Student Press Law Ctr. v. Alexander, 778 F.Supp. 1227, 1228 (D.D.C. 1991)
4. United States v. Gavagan, 280 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1960)
Legal Issues
1. Duty - In this case the parents of the deceased felt that the university had a duty to take
more action in the case of their sons mental health situation. Specifically, the parents
believed that the university owed the duty to protect their son from self-harm. They also
felt a duty to be informed of the previous incident should have occurred per university
policy.
2. Access to Records While the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), do
warrant some forms of confidentiality for students, the parents in this case noted the
exemptions to these rules. The university also had policies in place that were not
followed in terms of sharing information with parents or guardians. This incident could
be seen as an emergency and different action could have been talked.
Implications
Jain v. State is a case that takes a look at what the responsibility of universities is in
mental health situations. In the case the courts stood behind the university in the reasonability
and foreseeability of the student suicide was not a call for any further action of the university.
There is also no direct correlation to FERPA revoking the right of a university to communicate
with parents and guardians about the mental health of their students. If an individual were to
communicate with a student of concern, it is hard to determine that action taken by staff
increased or decreased the likeliness of this suicide occurring. It is our responsibility in these
situations to take reasonable action for the concerns of students and staff members for
prevention.