The court will likely hold Penn State University is liable for negligence actions on the sexual harassment to young children by its former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Under the common law, negligence is defined as failure to exercise ordinary care and caution as would be expected by a reasonably prudent person. Therefore, in order to establish a cause of action in negligence, the plaintiff must show (1) a duty on the part of defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) an injury or damage proximately resulting from the breach.

The first element that a duty on the part of defendant to protect the plaintiff is sufficiently met. According to the law, the owner or operator of a sport or recreation business owes a duty to keep the premises safe for all who enter the facility or premises. The incident occurred on Penn State campus. As the owner, the university is imposed a duty of care to individuals coming to the land. The second and third requirements, that the university breaches that duty and the breach was the proximate cause of children’s damages, are in question.

The plaintiff will likely be able to charge that Penn State failed to exercise control over coaching staff. In loco parentis doctrine, the relationship between a student athlete and a school is unique and special. School authorities stand “in place of the parents” and the relationship involves a mutual dependence and control by colleges over student-athletes’ lives. Thus a heightened duty of care should be imposed on colleges within the framework of school settings.

Basically Penn State had no duty to control former coach Sandusky on his own behavior as no special relationship exist between the two parties. However, such special relationship can be defined between the university football program and the Second Mire in charge by Sandusky as they are related to each other.