Legal Brief #2 1
Running head: LEGAL BRIEF #2
Legal Brief #2
Gott v. Berea College, et al.
156 Ky. 376; 161 S.W. 204; 1913
Evangelos Kontaxakis
July 23, 2009
Indiana State University
ELAF 755
Dr. Powers
Legal Brief #2 2
ELAF 755 Legal Brief #2
Evangelos Kontaxakis
Gott v. Berea College, et al.
156 Ky. 376; 161 S.W. 204; 1913
Case topic
Gott v. Berea College, et al. is a case involving a conflict between an owner of a
restaurant and a private institution Berea College. The owner of the restaurant charged the Berea
College and its officers that unlawfully and maliciously conspired to injure his business by
adopting a rule forbidding students from entering eating houses. The trial court dismissed the
restaurant owner’s petition. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed.
Summary of the Issues and Facts of the Case
The college published a booklet each year contained rules and regulations of the students.
The subsection of the manual entitled “forbidden places” included eating houses not enrolled by
the college. The owner of the restaurant charged the Berea College and its officers that
unlawfully and maliciously conspired to injure his business by adopting a rule forbidding
students from entering eating houses. The new rule was as follows: “eating houses and places of
amusement in Berea, not controlled by the College, must not be entered by students on pain of
immediate dismission. The institution provides for the recreation of its students, and ample
accommodation for meals and refreshments, and cannot permit outside parties to solicit student
patronage for gain.”
During the first few days after the publication of this rule two or three students were
expelled, for its violation. Then the owner instituted this action in equity, and procured a
temporary restraining order and injunction against the enforcement of the rule above quoted. The
college denied that any slanderous remarks had been made, or that they conspired maliciously, or
that the rule adopted was either unlawful, or unreasonable. Also, the College mentioned that that
the rules and regulation provided by the governing authorities of the college and every student
upon entering the institution agrees upon to these rules and regulation. Finally, college said that
the rule was in no way directed at the plaintiff. Therefore, the question is whether the rule
forbidding students entering eating houses was a reasonable one, and within the power of the
college authorities to enact.
College authorities stand in loco parentis concerning the physical and moral welfare, and
mental training of the pupils. The trial court and the Kentucky Court of Appeals had the opinion
the college can develop rules or regulation which protect the students, as the parents do.
Therefore, the court did not want to interfere, unless the rules and aims are unlawful, or against
public policy.
Court Decision
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court which dismissed
the restaurant owner’s petition charging the college and its officers unlawfully and maliciously
conspired to injure his business. The court decided that College’s officers and students are a legal
entity, and can direct the students where they may go and what forms of amusement are
Legal Brief #2 3
forbidden. The court were not to interfere, unless the rules were unlawful and against public
policy.
Importance to Higher Education Administrators
This case addresses whether or not it is against the law a university to develop rules and
regulation for the students which may have impact to private business outside of campus.
According to Henning (2007) “In loco parentis had been the philosophical foundation of higher
education policy and practice since 1913 when it was established as a legal doctrine in Gott v.
Berea. The doctrine defined the relationship between colleges, students, and parents. It was the
backdrop for policy and program development and provided the perspective that influenced
individual interactions with students” (p. 540).
Higher education changed when in loco parentis died in 1961 with Dixon v. Alabama
Board of Education (Henning, 2007). According to Edwards (1994), this fall was the result of
five factors: an increase in the number of older students on campus, a lowering of the age of
majority to 18 years, a liberal shift in student thinking, a rise in civil rights, and a rebellion
against authority. Bickel and Lake (1999) added the rise of student economic rights as a sixth
factor facilitating the fall of in loco parentis. The role of parents in their students’ college
education diminished with the new perspective of college students as adults who were entitled to
their own rights. As a result, the relationship between colleges and students changed.
New models including the constitutional model, contract model, fiduciary model, and the
bystander model were put forth as replacements for in loco parentis to provide not only a
philosophical foundation for higher education’s policy and practice, but also to redefine the
relationship between colleges, students, and parents. Recently, some scholars have argued that
the increase of liability cases against colleges for student injuries indicates that we are
experiencing a return to in loco parentis (Henning, 2007).
Additional References
Bickel, R. D., & Lake, P. F. (1999). The rights and responsibilities of the modern university.
Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Edwards, A. F., Jr. (1994). In loco parentis: Alive and kicking, dead andburied, or rising
phoenix? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education, Tucson, Arizona. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
375720)
Henning, G. (2007). Is In Consortio Cum Parentibus the New In Loco Parentis? NASPA Journal,
44, 538-560.