Whitlock v. Duke University

829 F.2d 1340 (1987)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Whitlock v. Duke University

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
829 F.2d 1340 (1987)

  • Written by Mike Begovic, JD

Facts

Leonard Whitlock (plaintiff) was an experienced diver who had participated in numerous diving programs. Duke University (defendant) conducted a series of deep-dive experiments to research the effects of high pressure on the nervous system. After his second dive with the program, Whitlock began experiencing brain damage. Before the dive, Whitlock had signed a consent form that listed numerous potential risks, including decompression sickness, which could cause death or disability, and risks associated with simulated altitudes that could result in serious injury or death. The form also noted the possibility of unknown risks, stating that dives of this nature had not been performed in the past. Finally, the form noted that compensation would only be paid if an injury was caused by negligence. Whitlock’s suit against Duke and the head of the laboratory conducting the dives, Peter Bennett (defendant), contained numerous claims, including fraudulent misrepresentation. With respect to the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim, Whitlock argued that Duke was aware of the risk of brain damage and knowingly concealed it from him. Whitlock primarily relied on his own deposition, in which he alluded to studies that found that deep-sea dives carried a risk of injury similar to his own. Whitlock did not, however, submit any studies into evidence. A district court reviewed deposition testimony from Bennett, who explained that he was not aware of any evidence linking brain injury to deep diving, along with Whitlock’s own deposition, in which he admitted that, as an experienced diver, he was aware of certain risks. The district court granted summary judgment for Duke on all claims. On appeal, Whitlock challenged the district court’s finding that Duke did not fraudulently or negligently conceal or misrepresent the risk of organic brain damage.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 814,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership