Hofstra University: Sued Over Bar Exam Cardiac Arrest Incident

In New York, Hofstra University is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Mary Jane Jung, an examinee who suffered cardiac arrest during the bar exam on July 30, 2025, arguing it had no legal duty to provide first aid for her medical emergency. Jung's complaint alleges she lost consciousness and turned blue in front of proctors and hundreds of other examinees, yet the exam continued without interruption until the scheduled lunch break, resulting in her suffering a hypoxic injury, an implanted defibrillator, and ongoing cognitive impairments.

This case carries significant legal implications for educational institutions, event organizers, and any entity hosting large gatherings, particularly those involving high-stakes activities. It directly challenges the scope of a landowner's duty of care, specifically questioning whether that duty extends to providing emergency medical assistance for unforeseen health crises unrelated to the premises' condition. Hofstra's argument that Jung was not a student and that a landowner's duty does not encompass providing first aid for medical emergencies could, if successful, narrow the perceived responsibilities of hosts and potentially shift the burden of emergency preparedness onto individuals or other entities.

The legal context for this dispute primarily lies within New York tort law, focusing on premises liability and the specific contours of the duty of care owed by a landowner to an invitee or licensee. The core legal question revolves around whether the duty to keep premises reasonably safe includes an affirmative obligation to intervene and provide medical aid during a sudden, non-premises-related medical emergency. The fact that Jung also filed against the bar examiners, with that aspect routed to the Court of Claims, indicates potential sovereign immunity considerations for state entities involved in administering the exam.

Practitioners advising universities, testing centers, conference venues, or any organization that hosts public events should closely monitor the outcome of this motion to dismiss. The court's decision will be crucial in defining the boundaries of premises liability and the extent of an institution's responsibility for the well-being of attendees during emergencies. It underscores the critical need for clear emergency response protocols, adequate medical personnel or resources on site, and comprehensive liability insurance. The outcome of this matter is not yet reported, but it will undoubtedly influence risk management strategies and legal obligations for entities hosting large-scale events in New York and potentially beyond.