Since this is in an off location apartment that is NOT being secured by the University, they are being grossly negligent in providing for the safety and well being of the students there by not allowing the students adequate means of self protection from incidents like this.
Negligence is defined at common law and under none of the several traditions in play in US jurisprudence today would this scenario be considered to constitute "gross negligence."
I don't think you have a full understanding of the way that common law has evolved. There is a LOT more to law than local and state statutes and tort concepts like "gross negligence" are largely undefined by statutes and do not vary significantly across jurisdictions.
Second, we don't know if there is an "impound" rule in the contract at all at this point.
It is almost inconceivable that there is not some provision to the effect that the university has the right to confiscate items brought onto campus in violation of its policies. The omission of such a provision would almost amount to malpractice on the part of the University's attorney.
We can play around with hypothetical worlds where grass is purple and the sky is brown but that doesn't really matter for the real world.
Third, we don't know how the law regarding contracts which deal with signing away certain rights have to be administered and if they were done correctly.
The common law requirements for the formation of a contract are shared by all 50 US states. While there are minor variations in small details (e.g. the specific analysis for how to interpret choice of law provisions and other minutiae), the requirements I listed earlier are universal within US law.
I say this because I know that at sporting events I been apart of previously, that they always had to have a written sign contract by the participants and that there was also an oral agreement with witnesses there where it was specifically pointed out that participation may result in injury or death and that by being a participant you wouldn't seek legal action against the those holding the event. That all liability is taken upon the participant for what happens at the event. That is how the law works here.
Even with that, I made a case study link above to how even that is not iron clad in some place and for various reasons. Like what I posted above with the swimming pool drowning incident in California.
Assumption of risk and inherently dangerous activities are entirely different areas of the law and don't touch upon anything in play here. I didn't mention them for the same reason that I didn't mention traffic laws. They're not relevant here.
Also, the case you mention is not on point. The waiver in question released the pool operator from "ordinary negligence" but was silent regarding release from "gross negligence." Additionally, while the case does mention the general public policy rule that contracts purporting to release a party from even minimal care, this is a common-law principle that is present in all 50 US states. The reason it's different from the sporting events you note is because this case involved care given to developmentally disabled individuals at a summer camp designed to provide services to such developmentally disabled individuals. There's not a court in the country that would allow a contract to remove all duty of care in that scenario.
The waivers you cite are not operating under different law, but rather under different circumstances. Even when exercising ordinary care (i.e. no negligence at all), persons participating in (and viewing) certain sporting events are susceptible to injury. A classic example is a spectator at a baseball game being hit by a foul ball. Additionally, if the people in the situations you have experienced could show gross negligence, the waivers would likely be unenforceable.
However, as I've already pointed out, "gross negligence" is a technical term with a very specific legal definition. The scenario you posit with the university would not fall within its meaning.
To quote from
Black's (emphasis mine):
Gross negligence consists of a conscious and voluntary act or omission which is likely to result in grave injury when in the face of clear and present danger of which the alleged tortfeasor is aware.
The potential that an apartment may, at some unknowable time in the future, be broken into is not a "clear and present danger" and I have a better chance of getting Alyson Hannigan to divorce her husband and marry me than you do of convincing a court that, as a matter of law, a prohibition on the ownership of firearms is "likely" to result in "grave injury." (In legal terms, "likely" means more than a 50% probability of something occurring.)
Note that none of this deals with the waiver of constitutional rights, but is merely a discussion on the duty of care, which is a concept that is not even tangentially mentioned in the Constitution and is really just a matter of common practice carried over from pre-colonial British law.
I'm just saying you keep thinking all the laws are the same everywhere and I keep telling you they are not.
You clearly don't understand the difference between common law concepts shared among all states and local statutory provisions.
It may also be worth noting that I practice in Washington State.
ZV
