October 22, 2026


Hofstra University Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Negligence During Bar Exam Cardiac Emergency

On a tense day in July 2025, the New York bar exam at Hofstra University was disrupted when examinee Mary Jane Jung suffered a cardiac arrest. Despite the severity of her condition, the exam continued unabated until the scheduled break, as Jung struggled for her life. Surviving the ordeal, Jung now suffers from a hypoxic injury and cognitive impairments, sparking a lawsuit against Hofstra for alleged negligence during the crisis.

Jung's lawsuit claims that Hofstra's public safety officers delayed critical emergency responses, including calling emergency services, administering CPR, and using an automated external defibrillator. These delays, she argues, stem from a negligent lack of training and accessibility of emergency equipment, fundamentally failing to maintain a safe venue.

Hofstra, however, seeks dismissal of the case, asserting no legal duty to assist Jung, who was not a Hofstra student but merely a visitor for the exam. The university maintains that its responsibility does not extend to medical emergencies unrelated to its property conditions or functions.

The legal battle extends beyond Hofstra. Disturbing allegations have surfaced against the Board of Law Examiners, with reports that staff actively discouraged other examinees from assisting Jung. This echoes the precedent set in the 1999 case, Barnes v. Dungan, where failure to allow CPR assistance led to legal repercussions after a fatal incident.

Furthermore, the Board of Law Examiners' own defense heavily relies on claims of governmental immunity, due to the bar exam's role as a critical state function. This stance, coupled with the bar's stringent examination environment that restricts communication and movement, spotlights the systemic issues surrounding the administration of such high-stakes testing.

This case raises significant questions about the responsibilities of institutions hosting critical examinations and the extent of care owed to participants in distress. As legal proceedings continue, the court's decisions may set important precedents for how examination venues must prepare for and respond to emergencies.