If a person visits your house for the weekend, are you legally responsible for their actions? If a person visits a city for a short getaway, is the city legally responsible for their actions?

The answers to the above questions should be an easy no. But a recent court case brought against Ohio University has challenged the level of responsibility an entity has for its guests.

The families of two girls who were visiting OU during the February 1998 Sibs' Weekend have sued the university for negligence and failure to provide a safe environment. The girls, a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old, allegedly were sexually assaulted by Travis McIntyre, a 17-year-old who also was visiting OU.

The complaints state that the university has a duty to provide and ensure a safe environment. Because this man was visiting OU for the weekend, is the university responsible for his alleged actions?

The answer should remain no. Although the girls allegedly were violated and the circumstance raises questions about Sibs' Weekend activities and residence hall safety, there was no way the university could have prevented the incident from happening.

Short of background checks, Resident Assistants in every room or rules prohibiting guests to spend the night in residence halls, it is impossible to expect the university to be responsible for each campus guest.

If the incident is proven to have occurred, the blame should lie on the man himself. The OU students who hosted the guests also should notice a responsibility with inviting people to campus. It is not a secret that assaults and crimes happen on campus, and the university has taken steps to prevent such things through security aides, RAs and residence hall rules. The university's responsibility should stop there.

Holding the university, or any entity, responsible for the actions of people on its premises is a dangerous assumption that inevitably will lead to more questions than answers.

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has eliminated two steps of the "three strikes and you're out" theory.

Starting last week, the city began confiscating the cars of motorists arrested for drunken driving - on the first offense. More than 20 states have laws that allow law enforcement to seize the car of repeat offenders. But New York is the first to allow confiscations on the first offense, and the move has raised eyebrows of lawyers and law enforcement officials.

One point of contention is the finality of the New York City regulation. Even if a motorist is acquitted of the criminal charge of drunken driving, the city can pursue the permanent confiscation of the car in civil court. The rationale is that the car was used as a weapon to commit a crime and should remain the property of the state.

Giuliani's initiative is a bold step toward eliminating drunken driving. Current laws are not working because drunken driving is still a national problem.

If the threat of killing someone while driving drunk wasn't enough to stop drunken driving, perhaps the more tangible threat of loss of personal property will be enough of a scare.

But the proposition goes one step too far. If a motorist is acquitted, the car should be returned. Because the person is not found guilty of a criminal crime, the city should not pursue civil charges.

Giuliani has put his city's law on the line in a noble effort to curb drunken driving. While some points should be questioned, one-time driving drunk is too many and the law should remain strict enough to enforce that concept.