Case Scenario:

On March $20,2021,$ Clint Davis and three fraternity brothers entered their campus stadium to watch a women's collegiate rugby game. However, their primary motivation was not to watch the game but rather to participate in an annual fraternity event known as the Tipsy Time Trial, where costumed fraternity members would attempt to run a lap on the running track surrounding the women's rugby field. On multiple occasions, the group members, including the plaintiff $($Davis$),$ were prevented by security personnel from gaining access to the running track.

University police prohibited the consumption of alcoholic beverages during athletic events, and anyone deemed visibly intoxicated was to be escorted out of the stadium by campus police. The university allowed containers in the stadium as long as they were a half$-$gallon or less. This policy was enforced by crowd management staff that performed visual searches of all packages and containers as patrons entered the stadium gates, but neither the crowd management staff nor campus police personnel would try to determine the components of the beverage.

In compliance with university policy, Davis and his three frat brothers brought four half$-$gallon containers into the stadium. The staff conducting the search were not aware that the containers contained a powerful alcoholic drink known as "jungle juice," a mixture of grain alcohol and fruit punch. After consuming a large amount of the potent drink, the plaintiff stumbled into a campus police officer and was told to $"$go home and sleep it off." A police officer observed Davis's condition and encouraged his fraternity brothers to take him home. During the course of the game, as Davis continued to consume the punch, he became increasingly intoxicated.

After being stymied in their efforts to get onto the running track, Davis and his three fraternity brothers climbed over a wall separating the stands from a grassy hillside. There, the plaintiff tumbled and rolled on the hillside, laid down, and fell asleep. Later, the group proceeded to the opposite side of the stadium and made another unsuccessful attempt to gain entrance to the track. The plaintiff then ran back to the concourse at the top of the stands and, with the others in pursuit, vaulted over the four$-$foot wall at the far end of the concourse, apparently without realizing that there was a $30-$foot drop to the concrete steps below. Davis sustained severe and permanent injuries to his ankles and knees as a result of his fall. Davis filed a negligence action against the university. The jury's verdict was in favor of the university, and Davis appealed.

Analysis:

Did the plaintiff $($Davis$)$ have a valid case? Please explain your rationale for your response.

Were the campus police partially responsible for Davis's injuries? Why? Why not?

Was the university negligent? Please explain your rationale for your response.

What duty did the university owe to Davis? Be explicit and descriptive with your response.

What should the university have done differently in this scenario?