The court further held that when the duty is triggered, a school must take “reasonable measures under the circumstances to protect the student from self-harm.”  The court stated the duty to take reasonable measures can be satisfied by following the university’s “suicide prevention protocol,” if it has developed such a protocol.  

If a school does not have a protocol, the duty can be satisfied by contacting the appropriate officials at the university empowered to assist the student in obtaining clinical care or, if the student refuses such care, notifying the student’s emergency contact.  Finally, in an emergency situation, reasonable measures would also involve calling the police, fire, or emergency medical personnel.

Despite recognizing this limited duty, the court found that Mr. Nguyen “never communicated by words or actions to any MIT employee that he had stated plans or intentions to commit suicide, and any prior suicide 
attempts occurred well over a year before matriculation.”  As a result, the first instance court held there was no legal duty created in this case.  

Moreover, the court found that the dean took appropriate steps to encourage Mr. Nguyen to seek professional help, which he refused.  Under those circumstances, Mr. Nguyen’s rights to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination were properly respected.  For these reasons, the SJC unanimously found that the claims against all of the MIT defendants were properly dismissed.

Father instantly  appealed.

OR READ IN DETAIL
Check out the ruling and focus on the reasoning  and the key tests  
The court have, however, recognized that special relationships may arise in certain circumstances imposing affirmative duties of reasonable care in regard to the duty to rescue, including the duty to prevent suicide. The classic case is the custodial relationship, particularly jails or hospitals.

The court concluded that there are other special relationships, outside the custodial context, that may impose
affirmative, albeit limited, duties in regard to suicide prevention. The Court therefore turn to the scope of the university- student relationship, and the duties, if any, it imposes regarding suicide prevention.

     c.  The modern university-student relationship.  We begin with the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which states that "[a]n actor in a special relationship with another owes the other a duty of reasonable care with regard to risks that arise within the scope of the relationship."  Restatement (Third) of Torts:
Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 40(a) (2012). Included in the list of special relationships giving rise to such duty is "a school with its students."  Id. at § 40(b)(5). This, of course, is the beginning and not the end of the analysis.  

There is a wide range of schools -- from elementary to graduate school -- and great differences in the scopes of student-school relationships.  Additionally, the Restatement (Third) of Tort's formulation of special relationship is not focused on the specific question of student suicide.

The particularities of the university-student relationship are of paramount importance in defining any duty.  Universities are clearly not bystanders or strangers in regards to their students.

The primary mission of universities is academic in nature. Universities also sponsor and have special relationships with their students regarding athletics and other potentially dangerous activities. They are also property owners and landlords responsible for their students' physical safety on
campus.   Furthermore, university involvement extends widely into other aspects of student life.  See Dall,
Determining Duty in Collegiate Tort Litigation:  Shifting Paradigms of the College-Student Relationship universities "do not conceive of their educational role narrowly . . . and foster many aspects of
student life and community involvement such as residential life, multicultural programs, student organizations, student government, student media, community service, internships and externships, technology, health and fitness, and spirituality")

But universities are not responsible for monitoring and controlling all aspects of their students' lives.  "There is
universal recognition that the age of in loco parentis has passed, and that the duty, if any is not one of a general duty of care to all students in all aspects of their collegiate life." 

University students are young adults, not young children. Indeed, graduate students are adults in all respects under the law.  Universities recognize their students' adult status, their desire for independence, and their need to exercise their own judgment.  Consequently the modern university-student relationship is respectful of student autonomy and privacy.