In discussing the student$-$university relationship, the Supreme Court recognized that $"$In today's society, the college student is considered an adult capable of protecting his or her own interests; students today demand and receive increased autonomy and decreased regulation on and off campus." The Court also indicated that dependence of one party on another is the basis for recognizing a special relationship that would bring about a duty to aid or protect. What did the Supreme Court conclude about a special relationship between the University and Whatlock based on dependence with respect to extracurricular activities like jumping on a trampoline?

That a special relationship existed between Whitlock, the fraternity, and the University because the fraternity leased the frat house from the University.

Although no special relationship existed, the University has a duty to protect all of its students while engaged in any activity on University property.

That a special relationship existed thereby creating a duty on the University to protect Whitlock from the type of injuries he experienced from jumping on the trampoline.

That no special relationship existed that created a duty on the University to take measures to protect Whitlock or other fraternity$/$sorority members from risks presented by the extracurricular activity of jumping on a trampoline.