Madeleine Barlow v. State of Washington

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 26, 2024
• Docket: 21-35397
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 26 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MADELEINE BARLOW, No. 21-35397

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05186-BHS

v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF WASHINGTON, DBA Washington State University,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2022 Submission Vacated June 23, 2022 Resubmitted March 26, 2024 Seattle, Washington

Before: BOGGS,** HURWITZ, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant State

of Washington, d/b/a Washington State University (University), on Madeleine

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Barlow’s Title IX and state-law negligence claims. We previously affirmed the

summary judgment on the Title IX claim. Barlow v. Washington, No. 21-25297,

2022 WL 2256318 (9th Cir. June 23, 2022). We certified to the Washington State

Supreme Court the dispositive questions of state law, relating to whether the

University owed Barlow a duty in negligence under the circumstances of this case.

Barlow v. Washington, 38 F.4th 62, 67 (9th Cir. 2022). The Washington Supreme

Court accepted our certification request, and rendered an opinion on the certified

questions on January 4, 2024. Barlow v. Washington, 540 P.3d 783 (Wash. 2024),

reconsideration denied, Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, No. 101045-1

(Wash. Mar. 12, 2024). In light of that opinion, we affirm the grant of summary

judgment on the remaining state-law negligence claim.

Under Washington law, the general rule is that people and businesses have no

duty to protect others from third-party conduct subject to certain exceptions,

“including when a special relationship exists between the actor and the perpetrator

or between the actor and the plaintiff/victim.” Id. In Barlow, the Washington

Supreme Court held that state law “recognizes a special relationship between a

university and its students, giving rise to a duty to use reasonable care to protect

students from foreseeable injury at the hands of other students.” Id. at 785. “The duty

exists where a student is on campus, similar to a business invitee, or involved in

university sponsored activities.” Id. Here, it is undisputed that the third-party

2 conduct that harmed Barlow occurred off-campus and outside of a

university-sponsored activity. Therefore, the University did not owe Barlow a duty

to protect her from that third-party conduct, and it is entitled to summary judgment

on the state-law negligence claim.

AFFIRMED.