RUNNING HEAD: PROBLEM 1 MARY JONES
David 1
Reflection Paper: Problem One – Mary Jones
Jane David
HIAD 8420
February 15, 2014
RUNNING HEAD: PROBLEM 1 MARY JONES
David 2
Reflection Paper: Problem One – Mary Jones
Off-campus internships offer students opportunities to apply and continue to advance
their learning in a professional setting. These experiences are often beneficial to both the student
and the off-campus site but they create a variety of legal concerns for the responsible institution.
Mary Jones was enrolled in New State University (NU) and, as a result of her student status,
chose to participate in the NU junior year abroad program. Her experience in her chosen study
site of Rwanda proved to be anything but a positive learning experience.
Institutions of higher education are subject to common law liability and statutory liability
for injuries that students sustain during off-campus internship experiences (Kaplin and Lee,
2007). Legal action resulting from Mary Jones’ experience would be an example of this and
likely classified as a tort claim in relation to NU’s duty to Ms. Jones, a student at that institution.
As is most common in higher education lawsuits, this tort liability is more specifically one of
negligence on NU’s part based upon the institution’s failure to take adequate steps to ensure that
Ms. Jones was protected from reasonably foreseeable harm and, given the case of Rwanda, that
Ms. Jones was adequately cautioned regarding potentially unsafe conditions at this location.
University representatives at NU clearly did not provide Ms. Jones with adequate preparation
prior to her travel and were not available to her when needed during the actual experience.
Mary Jones chose Rwanda for her study abroad location because of her interest and
desire to work in an area of women’s oppression. She reportedly discussed this interest and
intent with her academic advisor. Notably, however, the university had knowledge of issues
occurring for students in Rwanda in the past. Knowing this history should NU have allowed Ms.
Jones to travel to Rwanda? Did her activist plans increase her risk for problems in this country?
RUNNING HEAD: PROBLEM 1 MARY JONES
David 3
In Gross v. Family Services Agency and Nova Southeastern University, Inc., 716 So. 2d 337 the
trial court ruled that because of the university’s knowledge of previous assaults in the off-campus
training location a special relationship existed for the university that resulted in liability for the
university, even though the student was injured as the result of actions by a third party (Kaplin
and Lee, p.97). The student’s actions at the off-campus training site were not a point of contest.
Therefore, it could be argued that Ms. Jones’ actions in Rwanda were not significantly relevant
in any legal action related to her experience since she was there under the authorization of NU
and that the university was aware of potential dangers in Rwanda prior to Ms. Jones’ travel there
for her studies.
Mary Jones’ experience in the NU’s study abroad program definitely indicates that a
thorough analysis and revision of policies and procedures with regard to off-campus training is
needed by this institution. Specifically, standard practices should be established and enforced for
student advising and preparation prior to any off-campus experience, as well as, for faculty
supervision and intervention during such experiences. These practices should include both
preventive and reactive measures. Prevention measures, for example, could include student
education through a variety of methods. In addition, faculty and staff should be specifically
aligned and trained in addressing the needs of students in the study abroad program. An action
plan should be in place for unforeseen situations that may arise. This plan should serve as an
advocate for the student (Svacina, 2012). Ms. Jones’ case demonstrates NU’s need for a much
more proactive mechanism for ensuring that a student’s study abroad experience is appropriate
for their learning advancement and in a location that does not expose that student to an
unreasonable risk for harm. This proactive role should include substantial precautionary efforts
RUNNING HEAD: PROBLEM 1 MARY JONES
David 4
associated with locations that may be unsafe or prone to criminal activity, even to the point of
discontinuing the use of locations that are or that have become especially risky.
RUNNING HEAD: PROBLEM 1 MARY JONES
David 5
Works Cited
Kaplin, W.A., & Lee, B.A. (2007). The law of higher education (4th ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Svacina, L. (2012). A review of research on unpaid internship legal issues: Implications for
career services professionals. Journal of Cooperative Education & Internships, 46(1), 77-87.