University of Denver v. Whitlock
Colorado Supreme Court
744 P.2d 54 (1987)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Oscar Whitlock (plaintiff) was a student at the University of Denver (defendant) and a member of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity. The Beta Theta Pi fraternity house was on property owned by the university and leased to the fraternity. Though the fraternity house was located on university property, very little regulation by the university to assure the safety of students during recreational activities was exercised. Besides enforcing fire drills and performing maintenance on the fraternity house, the university exerted very little control over the house or the fraternity members. At approximately 10:00 p.m. one night, Whitlock, an adult, was jumping on a trampoline on the fraternity house’s front lawn when Whitlock attempted a front flip, landed on the back of his head, and broke his neck. The accident rendered Whitlock a person with quadriplegia. Whitlock filed a lawsuit against the university, among others, alleging that the university was negligent by failing to supervise or prohibit the use of the trampoline. A jury returned a verdict for Whitlock in the amount of $5,256,000. The trial court granted the university’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that no reasonable jury could conclude that the university was more negligent than Whitlock. Whitlock appealed. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the university owed Whitlock a duty of care to either remove the trampoline from the fraternity house or supervise its use. The university filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Colorado Supreme Court, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lohr, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


