Gilbert v. Seton Hall University
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
332 F.3d 105 (2003)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Seton Hall (defendant) was a private, nonprofit university located in New Jersey. Michael Gilbert (plaintiff) was a student at Seton Hall. Though Gilbert was domiciled in Connecticut, he lived in New Jersey near the Seton Hall campus while attending school. Gilbert played rugby at Seton Hall as part of Seton Hall’s Rugby Club, a sport not associated with Seton Hall’s intercollegiate athletic program organized and managed by students with assistance from the Seton Hall Department of Recreation Services. Gilbert traveled with the Rugby Club to play a rugby match in New York against a team that was loosely associated with another university. The field in New York was not appropriately kept, the opposing team members were drinking alcoholic beverages during the game, and no formal referee was present. No coach or faculty advisor accompanied the Seton Hall Rugby Club to the match. Gilbert suffered serious injuries during the match that left him quadriplegic. Gilbert filed a lawsuit in federal district court in New York against Seton Hall, alleging negligence in Seton Hall’s failure to supervise the Rugby Club. The district court granted Seton Hall’s motion for summary judgment, finding that New Jersey law applied to the case, which allowed for a complete defense of charitable immunity. Gilbert appealed, arguing that New York law, which has abolished charitable immunity, must apply.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.