ILNews

Fraternity pledge loses appeal involving alleged hazing incident

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana Court of Appeals judges found that an incident involving “showering” at a Wabash College fraternity in 2007 – which led to injuries to a freshman pledge – were not considered hazing under Indiana law. Judge Nancy Vaidik, who dissented, found the majority’s view of pledging and hazing “far too restrictive.”

Brian Yost sued Wabash College, his fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity’s national chapter, and fraternity brother Nathan Cravens for personal and mental injuries he sustained in an incident at the house. Yost and his fraternity pledge brothers wanted to throw an upperclassman brother into a near by creek, which is called “creeking,” to celebrate his 21st birthday. After being unsuccessful, four upperclassman brothers decided to carry Yost to the shower and run water on him, which is called “showering.” When to perform both activities is explained in the pledge handbook. This incident of “showering” was spontaneous.

While trying to “shower” Yost, Cravens placed Yost in a chokehold, causing him to lose consciousness. The other brothers dropped Yost’s body on the floor. The incident led to Yost eventually withdrawing from college.  

The trial court granted Wabash College and the Phi Kappa Psi defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which Judges Terry Crone and Cale Bradford affirmed. Summary judgment was not entered for Cravens, and he is not participating in the appeal in Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens, 54A01-1201-CT-31.

Yost maintained the incident surrounding his injuries was hazing and those defendants turned a blind eye and owed him a duty of reasonable care. The majority opinion noted that no Indiana court has specifically addressed liability for university and fraternities based on allegations of injuries stemming from an incident involving hazing.

But the majority found that this incident did not amount to hazing under Indiana’s criminal anti-hazing law or other foreseeable criminal conduct, and that the activities that night were impromptu and not keeping with the parameters specified in the pledge manual.

“We agree that a college cannot simply turn a blind eye to inherently dangerous activities on its campus; neither can a fraternity ignore such activities within its walls. Nevertheless, we reiterate that such institutions/organizations are not guarantors or insurers of their adult student-members’ safety, and we reject the notion that all fraternities should be impugned based on the activities of a few,” Crone wrote for the majority, which found that the defendants did not breach any duty owed to Yost.

In her dissent, Vaidik found genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Wabash and the Phi Psi local chapter owed Yost a duty of care, and whether the events of that night constituted criminal hazing that were reasonably foreseeable to Wabash.

She noted since the early 2000s, there have been 15 reported instances of hazing that Wabash was aware of and took action on – three of which directly involved the Phi Psi house.

“All said, I believe that the designated facts could reasonably lead a trier of fact to conclude that hazing occurred here—hazing that both Phi Psi and Wabash had a duty to stop yet ignored,” she wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT