GTSCA: Yeah, a property owner owes a higher duty of care to business invitees than to trespassers, no question about it. But didn't TSM organize and operate those events entirely on its own, with no input from PSU? I'm guessing that PSU did not directly invite any of "Jerry's kids" to the TSM events, and probably had no input or idea who was being invited. I'm not an expert in premises liability issues, but I believe that when it comes to a landowner's premises liability, there is a category somewhere between trespasser and invitee (licensee?). A landowner's duty of care to such a person is higher than it is to a trespasser but lower than it is to an invitee.
In any event, absent some clear notice to PSU of Jerry's propensity to commit sexual abuse, my guess is that TSM, not PSU, would have borne the liability for Jerry's assaults had any claims been litigated rather than settled without litigation. That is where Jerry's status as a former employee of PSU, and any reports of prior assaults by Jerry, become truly relevant.