June 28, 2018
In a decision dated May 7, 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion that it may be possible for schools to be liable for student suicides under certain circumstances where a “special relationship” exists between the student and school. In 2009, Han Duy Nguyen, a 25-year-old graduate student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) jumped from the top of a campus building to his death after a professor called to confront him about an offensive email he had sent earlier in the day. Nguyen’s father initiated the lawsuit Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 479 Mass. 436 (2018), alleging that M.I.T. was negligent in failing to take reasonable measures to prevent his son’s suicide.
Han Guy Nguyen, like many others, was a promising young student who had a history of anxiety, issues with test-taking, and a history of depression dating back to high school. Prior to his suicide in 2009, Nguyen had attempted suicide on two prior occasions and had briefly sought assistance fromM.I.T. student disability services, M.I.T. Mental Health, and the M.I.T. student support office on various occasions between May and September of 2007. He also “extensively consulted with clinicians not affiliated with M.I.T.” and saw a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital regularly.
By 2008, Nguyen’s professors became aware of his struggles with insomnia when he disclosed his diagnosis in a self-evaluation form. Nguyen’s professors met in January of 2009 to discuss his poor exam performance and ultimately decided to pass Nguyen. Nguyen was then informed by one of his professors that he had passed, but he would need to take additional courses to remain in the Ph.D. program. The professor also advised Nguyen of the option of obtaining a Master’s degree and expressed that all members of the M.I.T. faculty believed Nguyen “would be unhappy in a professorial job.” Nguyen remained adamant about pursuing his Ph.D. and went on to serve as a teaching assistant in the spring of 2009.
Nguyen was thereafter recommended for a summer research assistant position and began corresponding with a project investigator about funding for his summer research. When Nguyen sent an email to the project investigator expressing his distaste in the project investigator’s presumption that Nguyen was only a research assistant for the money, Nguyen’s professor called to discuss the situation with him. Moments after the call ended, Nguyen jumped from a campus building and ended his life. Before learning of the suicide, his professor sent an email to another professor, stating that he “read [Nguyen] the riot act” and explained to Nguyen what was wrong with the email.
The Court noted that while generally, there is no duty to prevent another from committing suicide, a “special relationship” can give rise to a duty to prevent suicide. In describing this duty, the Court acknowledged that there are a wide variety of types of schools ranging from elementary to graduate school and “great differences in the scope of student-school relationships,” resulting in varying levels of this duty.The Courtnoted that where a university is not acting in loco parentis, or in the place of a parent and “provides for the students’ independence and self-determination,” this special duty is limited. Ultimately, M.I.T. was not held liable for Nguyen’s suicide because he never communicated to any M.I.T. employee that he planned or intended to commit suicide and he was a 25-year-old graduate student living off campus. Additionally, Nguyen made it clear “he wanted to keep his mental health issues and treatment separate from his academic performance problem” and was seeking treatment with mental health professionals outside of M.I.T.
While M.I.T.’s awareness of Nguyen’s mental health issues, medical conditions, poor exam performance and out of character behavior wasnot enough to rise to the level of a breach of M.I.T.’s special duty in this case, it is possible that a similar set of facts could result in liability for a school with younger students. Going forward, based on the particular set of facts surrounding a suicide, a high school or secondary school may be found to have a higher duty than M.I.T.’s in the instant case based on the age of the student and the nature of the student-school relationship. And while the “special duty” only presently applies toMassachusetts cases, it’s not unrealistic to anticipate that other states will also decide to hold schools and potentially municipalities who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent a student’s suicide liable for their actions or omissions.
In Connecticut, the Connecticut Compilation of School Discipline Laws and Regulations § 10-221 requires local and regional boards of education to establish and adopt a written policy containing procedures for addressing youth suicide attempts. And while Connecticut’s regulation demonstrates a clear need for a written policy, it still remains optional for school boards in Connecticut to implement student assistance programs, referral services, and trainings for teachers and other school professionals.
With cases and claims involving suicide on the rise in recent years, it’s important for schools, municipalities, and their insurers to rethink their protocol when it comes to addressing students’ mental health conditions, depression, and suicidal thoughts, especially in cases involving younger students where a school is acting in loco parentis. Articulating a plan to take reasonable measures now could help schools and municipalities avoid liability in the future, or more importantly, it could save a life.