v. State, 385 So.2d 1378, 1382-83 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980). A university owes student tenants the same duty to exercise due care for their protection as a private landowner owes its tenants. See Peterson v. S.F. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 36 Cal.3d 799, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193 (Cal.1984). We emphasize that a university is not an insurer of the safety of its students. Nonetheless, university has a duty of reasonable care to protect a student against certain dangers, including criminal actions against a student by another student or a third party if the criminal act is reasonably foreseeable and within the university’s control. Nero v. Kan. State Univ., 253 Kan. 567, 861 P.2d 768, 780 (1993); see also Sharkey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb., 260 Neb. 166, 615 N.W.2d 889, 902 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. N.C. Wesleyan Coll., Inc., 65
holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm holding that university had duty to protect student from reasonably foreseeable fraternity hazing holding the university owes a landownerinvitee duty to its students to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable acts of violence on its campus and the harm that naturally flows therefrom holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons holding that a secured creditors failure to take reasonable steps to protect its collateral prevented application of  523a6s exception to discharge