SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Washington, DC Case Summary
Szymkowicz v. President & Dirs. of the Coll. of Georgetown Univ.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 23-CV-0278
Decided: June 12, 2025
University smoking policy does not create a duty of care to neighbors of an off-campus college student whose smoking allegedly harmed Plaintiffs.
Background
Plaintiffs lived near the campus of Georgetown University. A Georgetown student lived adjacent to the Plaintiffs and shared a wall with Plaintiffs. During the three months the student lived next door to Plaintiffs, the student allegedly caused secondhand marijuana smoke to migrate into Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs claimed that they suffered headaches, coughs and sinus issues, among other things, due to the smoke exposure.
Plaintiffs allegedly contacted the University multiple times to try to address the issue. They also tried to discuss the smoking with the student. The University met with the student. Further, after the student left for the winter break, the University moved the student to another off-campus house.
Plaintiffs sued the University for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, public and private nuisance, and breach of contract. They alleged that the University breached the duty of care, and breached a contract, when it failed to timely address the student’s smoking. They grounded this theory in two documents: the Georgetown University Campus Plan, and the Order of the D.C. Zoning Commission approving that plan. Plaintiffs alleged that the zoning plan required the University to mitigate the impacts of student behavior on the surrounding neighborhood.
The University moved to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. In granting the Motion, the Trial Court held that the University did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs, that it could not be liable for a private nuisance, and that it did not have a contract with the District of Columbia under which the Plaintiffs could sue. Plaintiffs appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. As for negligence, the Court of Appeals held that the University owed no duty of care to Plaintiffs, and that it did not assume a duty of care in adopting the campus plan and seeking the Zoning Commission’s approval of it. Though tort duties can arise under the common law, they did not here, since a party typically does not incur liability for a failure to act (i.e. failing to prevent the student from causing harm to others). Plaintiffs provided no examples in which a Court had found a duty to a non-student who is harmed by a student’s off-campus conduct. The University’s campus plan, by itself, did not mean that the University had assumed a duty of care, since “aspirational practices do not establish the standard of care which a plaintiff must prove in support and an allegation of negligence.” The Court of Appeals further held that imposing such a sweeping duty on universities would be unwise because it would amount to a limitless duty of care.
The private and public nuisance claims also failed because the University did not control the instrumentality that allegedly constituted a nuisance. Lastly, the mere fact that the University sought and obtained approval of its campus plan from the District of Columbia did not create a contract between the University and the District under which the Plaintiffs could sue.
Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Ainsley at (202) 945-9506 or mainsley@tthlaw.com.