In the wake of the recent wave of campus violence, the California Supreme Court on Thursday weighed in on when universities can be held liable for attacks on students.

In a case brought on behalf of Katherine Rosen, a UCLA student who was stabbed by a classmate in a chemistry lab in 2009, the court held that universities have a “special relationship” with students and, therefore, have a duty to protect them from foreseeable violence in “curricular activities.”

“Considering the unique features of the college environment, we conclude postsecondary schools do have a special relationship with students while they are engaged in activities that are part of the school's curriculum or closely related to its delivery of educational services,” wrote Justice Carol Corrigan on behalf of the six-judge majority. “We conclude that violence against students in the classroom or during curricular activities, while rare, is a foreseeable occurrence, and considerations of public policy do not justify categorically barring an injured student's claims against the university.”

The decision breathes new life into Rosen's case against the UC Regents. The Second District Court of Appeal had previously held in a 2-1 decision in 2015 that UCLA had no duty to protect Rosen, a decision which reversed a summary judgment ruling by Judge Gerald Rosenberg of Los Angeles Superior Court.

Rosen said in an email shared by one of her lawyers that she was “thrilled and relieved” by the decision.

“I am hopeful it will provide the impetus for colleges throughout the country to mobilize their resources to develop and implement real, effective strategies to protect their students,” Rosen said.

Rosen was the victim of a grisly attack by Damon Thompson, a student whom UCLA officials had been monitoring after he reported hearing voices. According to Thursday's decision, a campus psychologist had diagnosed Thompson with possible schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. A university “Response Team” charged with tracking the well-being of certain students had been discussing Thompson at its weekly meetings before his Oct. 8, 2009, attack.

Thompson, without provocation, stabbed Rosen in the chest and neck with a kitchen knife during a chemistry lab session. She was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. She's since recovered, completed her degree at UCLA, and has gone on to medical school, where she's in her second year of residency. Thompson pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to attempted murder and was admitted to a state mental hospital, where he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vazquez said in an emailed statement that the school sympathized with the trauma Rosen and her family endured, and that student safety is a school priority.

“We are disappointed in the California Supreme Court's decision, and we are also concerned about the decision's potential impact on higher education in California and beyond,” Vazquez said. “The university is committed to providing an environment that is conducive to learning and that provides appropriate resources to support our students in need.”

The school was represented by counsel at Maranga & Morgenstern in Woodland Hills and Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles.

Rosen is represented by Brian Panish and Deborah Chang of Panish Shea Broyles in Los Angeles and Napa appellate specialist A. Charles Dell'Ario.

Panish called the decision “a win for all California students.”

“Despite all the representations they make to students and their parents, UC maintained they don't have a duty to protect students, which to me is outrageous,” Panish said. “The Supreme Court, they're with it. They're with the times. They see what's going on.”

Chang, Panish's colleague, said the decision is the first time a state Supreme Court had taken up the issue of whether colleges owe their students a duty to protect them since the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech.

In Thursday's decision, Justice Ming Chin filed a concurring opinion saying he joined the majority's judgment, but that he wouldn't extend a university's duty to warn or protect beyond the classroom.