Hofstra University: Seeks Dismissal of Bar Examinee Cardiac Arrest Lawsuit

• Mary Jane Jung suffered cardiac arrest during the New York bar exam at Hofstra University on July 30, 2025.
• The exam continued uninterrupted despite her medical emergency, which allegedly resulted in a hypoxic injury and other lasting health issues.
• Jung filed a lawsuit against Hofstra, which is now seeking dismissal of the case.
• Hofstra argues it had no relationship with Jung and no duty to provide first aid for medical emergencies unrelated to its property.
• The case challenges the traditional scope of premises liability regarding a landowner's responsibility for unforeseen medical events.

This case could redefine the obligations of landowners, educational institutions, and event organizers when unforeseen health crises occur on their premises.

On July 30, 2025, a critical medical emergency unfolded at Hofstra University during the New York bar examination. Mary Jane Jung, an examinee, suffered a cardiac arrest, losing consciousness and reportedly turning blue in the presence of proctors, staff, and over 600 fellow test-takers. Despite the grave situation, the examination proceeded without interruption, continuing until its scheduled lunch break before resuming precisely on time.

Jung survived the incident, but her complaint alleges severe and lasting health consequences. These include a hypoxic injury, requiring the implantation of a defibrillator, as well as ongoing memory loss and significant cognitive impairment. The traumatic event and its aftermath have now become the subject of a significant legal challenge, bringing into question the responsibilities of institutions hosting such high-stakes events.

Following the medical emergency, Mary Jane Jung initiated legal proceedings, naming both Hofstra University, the site of the New York bar exam medical emergency, and the bar examiners as defendants. The claim against the bar examiners was subsequently redirected to the Court of Claims, recognizing its nature as a government function. Hofstra, however, is actively seeking to have the case against it dismissed, arguing that it bears no responsibility for the incident.

According to reports from Bloomberg Law News, Hofstra's motion to dismiss hinges on several key assertions. The university contends that because Jung was not a Hofstra student, no direct relationship existed between her and the institution. Furthermore, Hofstra argues that a landowner's fundamental duty to maintain reasonably safe premises does not extend to providing first aid for medical emergencies that are entirely unrelated to the host's property or actions. This argument directly challenges the scope of a landowner duty to provide first aid in such circumstances.

The Hofstra motion to dismiss presents a significant legal question regarding the boundaries of premises liability, particularly concerning medical emergencies that arise independently of a property's condition. This case could redefine the obligations of landowners, educational institutions, and event organizers when unforeseen health crises occur on their premises. The university's stance suggests a narrow interpretation of responsibility, asserting that its duty is limited to property safety and does not encompass active medical intervention for non-property-related incidents.

Should Hofstra's argument prevail, it could establish a precedent limiting the duty of care for entities hosting large gatherings or examinations. Conversely, a ruling against Hofstra might expand the scope of what constitutes reasonable care, potentially requiring hosts to implement more robust emergency medical protocols. The outcome of the Mary Jane Jung Hofstra lawsuit will be closely watched by legal professionals and organizations across various sectors, as it could significantly impact the perceived responsibilities for attendee safety during unexpected medical events.

This case challenges the traditional scope of premises liability, specifically whether a landowner hosting an event owes a duty to provide first aid for medical emergencies unrelated to the host's property. Lawyers advising educational institutions, event organizers, or any entity hosting third parties should monitor this litigation as it could redefine responsibilities for attendee safety during unforeseen medical crises.

Source: Original reporting via Bloomberg Law News