1
Figueroa v. North Park Assignment
Amanda Rhodes
Liberty University
GOV 280-B02: Tort Law
Professor Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams
January 30, 2023
2
Figueroa v. North Park Assignment
Introduction
The case of Figueroa v. North Park College involves Ms. Figueroa, upon dropping her
child at the Child Care Center, being physically and sexually assaulted walking to her vehicle in
a parking lot belonging to North Park College (hereinafter, “North Park”) (Edwards, 2016, p.
85). Ms. Figueroa sued North Park for the incident for “negligent failure to provide adequate
security in the parking lot” (Edwards, 2016, p. 85). The matter in question is Ms. Figueroa’s
status as an occupant of North Park College’s property.
Assessment
At first glance, Ms. Figueroa would be considered a public invitee to the premises of
North Park. As stated, “A public invitee is one who is invited and enters the land for the purpose
for which the land is held open to the public” (Edwards, 2016, p. 68). North Park owns the
parking lot in which the incident occurred. Said parking lot is used by North Park to conduct
business at the college. However, North Park’s written permission given to the patrons of the
Child Care Center for use of the parking lot entitles those patrons to use the property as a public
invitee. This therefore proves that North Park had a duty to warn the patrons of the Child Care
Center, including Ms. Figueroa, of any potential dangers given there were off-duty police
officers patrolling the entire campus and not one central location such as the parking lot.
North Park’s lack of warning to the patrons of the Child Care Center gives Ms. Figueroa
the ability to establish liability under the voluntary-undertaking doctrine. This doctrine can find
someone “liable even though it has no legal duty to protect” (Edwards, 2016, p. 80). It could be
argued that North Park failed to provide adequate security in its parking lot, putting the patrons
3
of the Child Care Center at risk of potential harm, although only minor incidents had taken place
on campus prior to Ms. Figuroa’s attack.
Unfortunately for Ms. Figuroa, the court found that North Park “had not been negligent in
preventing the crime against the Plaintiff” Edwards, 2016, p. 85). The same failure to prove (
liability was established in Kennan v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. In this case Kennan was injured
by a safety cable upon retrieving lumber from the lumber bin when the safety cable snapped
resulting in an eye injury. It was found that Kennan did not create “a fact issue on the duty
element of his claims” (Keenan v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 16-cv-4530 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20,
2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ms. Figeroa technically did have invitee status to North Park’s parking lot
via a written letter, but it was found “that any “public relations benefit” to the defendant was “too
remote to confer invitee status” (Edwards, 2016, p. 85). North Park also had a duty as the
landlord to alert invitees and licensees of any “dangers that the landlord knows or should know
about such as the minor incidents that took place. (Edwards, 2016, p. 71) However, North Park
did take measures to protect the campus by hiring off-duty police officers and, although it was
weak, proved there was a level of security in place (Edwards, 2016, p. 85). In a recent study it
was found that “The overall rate of nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force or inability to
consent since the student enrolled at the school was 13.0 percent” which should be a wakeup call
to all universities to up their security measures for the sake of their staff and students, just as
North Park should have done (Cantor, et al, 2020).
4
References
Edwards, J.S. (2016). Tort Law, 6th Ed. Cengage Learning.
Keenan v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 16-cv-4530 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2021). Retrieved from
https://casetext.com/case/keenan-v-home-depot-usa-inc
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Harps, S., Townsend, R., Thomas, G.,Madden, K. (2020,
January 17). Key Issues. Association of American Universities. Retrieved from
https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised
%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdf
Walters, E. (2018). The
Model Rules of
Autonomous Conduct:
Ethical Responsibilities of
Lawyers and Artificial
Intelligence. Ga. St. UL
Rev., 35, 1073.
Walters, E. (2018). The
Model Rules of
5
Autonomous Conduct:
Ethical Responsibilities of
Lawyers and Artificial
Intelligence. Ga. St. UL
Rev., 35, 1073.
Walters, E. (2018). The
Model Rules of
Autonomous Conduct:
Ethical Responsibilities of
Lawyers and Artificial
Intelligence. Ga. St. UL
Rev., 35, 1073.
