Sager v Frontpage Investments, Drexel University
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether a university can be held vicariously liable for alleged negligence by its students while they were working in a paid cooperative education placement for a third-party employer.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied Drexel University's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Drexel University.
Drexel established that it did not control the means and manner of the students' work at Jaidan Industries, and any oversight it retained through the cooperative education program was merely incidental, not enough to create either an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship.
Background
The plaintiff was injured at Jaidan Industries when a machine being transported on a forklift, along with a crane piece lifting the machine, fell and landed on his foot. The forklift was being operated by two Drexel University students participating in the Drexel Cooperative Education Program (co-op), a program through which students obtain paid work experience with participating employers. The plaintiff sued, alleging that Drexel was vicariously liable for the students' negligent operation of the forklift.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied Drexel University's motion for summary judgment, allowing the claim against Drexel to proceed on a vicarious liability theory.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that Drexel made a prima facie showing that it lacked sufficient control over the students' day-to-day work and conduct during their placement at Jaidan Industries. The evidence showed that participating employers chose whether to hire students, paid them, issued Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents, set their schedules, trained them, supervised them, and could terminate their employment. Drexel's role was limited to providing an online recruiting platform, requiring a minimum number of work hours for academic credit, enforcing a student code of conduct, and collecting end-of-program surveys. Because this level of oversight was only incidental, the court ruled that Drexel could not be treated as the students' employer or principal, and it granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against Drexel.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that vicarious liability under New York law depends on meaningful control over the results produced or the means used to achieve them. Educational institutions that place students in external work assignments are not automatically liable for students' workplace negligence merely because the placement is part of an academic program. Incidental academic or administrative oversight does not create an employer-employee or agency relationship.
A university is not vicariously liable for a co-op student's workplace negligence where the host employer, not the university, controls hiring, pay, supervision, training, scheduling, and termination.