ILNews

Hazing suit weighs college, fraternity liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former freshman pledge hurt as fraternity brothers at Wabash College carried and then dropped him will have his case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court, testing the reach of Indiana’s anti-hazing statute.

But before the court determines whether colleges, their Greek letter chapters or other entities may be liable for allegations of hazing under the law, the jushazingtices will wrestle with whether Brian Yost was hazed at all. Two of three Court of Appeals judges held that he wasn’t and that his injury was a result of spontaneous hijinks that got out of hand at Wabash’s Phi Kappa Psi house.

Justices this month agreed to hear Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens, 54S01-1303-CT-161. The Court of Appeals majority in October affirmed in a 42-page ruling the Montgomery Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment for Wabash and the fraternity defendants, holding they owed no duty to Yost.

Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented, concluding that the facts could lead to a finding that Yost was hazed. “Because of this, I believe that this is a jury’s call, not ours,” Vaidik wrote, though she agreed with summary judgment for the national Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.
 

hazing-15col.jpg An incident in which a freshman pledge was injured at the Phi Kappa Psi House at Wabash College in Crawfordsville resulted in a suit in which the Supreme Court could draw lines under Indiana’s anti-hazing statute. (Photo courtesy of Wabash College)

As a freshman pledge, Yost was injured when four upperclassmen tried to carry him to the shower in the fraternity house and run water on him in an activity called “showering,” which was outlined in the Gamma Chapter’s pledge packet. Upperclassman Nathan Cravens put Yost in a chokehold, according to the court record. Yost became unconscious and was dropped on the floor, resulting in injuries. He subsequently withdrew from Wabash.

In her dissent, Vaidik cited two later student deaths at Wabash that she wrote, “support a showing of a culture of hazing that is present on Wabash’s campus.”

Majority Judges Terry Crone and Cale Bradford took exception. “While the dissent notes that both incidents happened after Yost’s showering, we fail to see how such subsequent developments are relevant to our concerns in this case.”

The judges also disagreed over whether Wabash turned a blind eye to hazing.

Wabash spokesman Jim Amidon said the college would not comment on pending litigation, but said in a statement that the Crawfordsville school makes clear its position on student conduct. “Wabash operates with a single rule of conduct known as the Gentleman’s Rule, which states: ‘The student is expected to conduct himself at all times, both on and off the campus, as a gentleman and responsible citizen.’”

“The high expectations we have for, and communicate to, our students are emphasized often. That said, ours is a place of education, and we constantly seek to improve the education of our men to a higher understanding of the Gentleman’s Rule and of their capabilities. Accordingly, most of our discipline is done in conversation and from an educational perspective and not, most often, from a punitive one,” the Wabash statement said.

Stephen M. Wagner, a partner with Wagner Reese LLP in Carmel, sued Wabash and a local and national fraternity over the 2008 death of freshman Johnny D. Smith of Tucson, Ariz. Smith died of alcohol poisoning at the Delta Tau Delta house at Wabash. A trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the national fraternity, and that ruling has been briefed to the Court of Appeals, Wagner said. The trial court has not yet ruled regarding Wabash and the local chapter. He said he could not comment on the Smith case.

But Wagner said Yost will be closely watched for whether justices limit their holdings to the facts of the case or reach broader liability issues.

“A key fact in Yost is that Wabash was not just the college in that scenario, but also a landlord and a premises owner,” Wagner said. That differs from universities such as Indiana or Purdue, where fraternity houses are independently owned. But Wagner believes Yost could be significant to the duties of colleges to protect students in college-owned dorms, for instance.

As reflected in the COA opinion in Yost, the definition of hazing is “a polarizing issue,” Wagner said. So is the notion of a hazing culture at Wabash. “There’s a perception about what goes on at one of the few all-male, almost all-Greek colleges,” he said. “In some of these lawsuits against Wabash, there are allegations that there’s a pattern of allowing underage drinking and allowing these kinds of activities to occur in college-owned houses.”


tidmarsh Tidmarsh

Notre Dame Law School professor Jay Tidmarsh said the Yost case appears difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on, but it’s also unpredictable. Tidmarsh previously tried numerous cases involving duty as a trial attorney with the Torts Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Tidmarsh said both the majority and dissent in the Court of Appeals ruling made strong cases, particularly as to what constitutes hazing. Of the hazing statute, he said, “there’s enough language in there that there’s play about whether it could encompass this kind of activity” that resulted in Yost’s injuries.

Indiana Code 35-42-2-2 defines hazing as forcing a person, with or without consent, and “as a condition of association with a group or organization ... to perform an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.” Whether this statute that sets criminal penalties for hazing also may impose civil liability through a duty claim is another question for the court.

“Duty tends to arise when there’s some pre-existing relationship to the people who are doing the injuring and the defendant, or when it’s foreseeable an injury will arise and you don’t do anything about it,” Tidmarsh said. “Usually foreseeability alone isn’t going to be enough.”

Sean Callan is a founding partner of Cincinnati-based Fraternal Law Partners. The firm represents Greek letter organizations, their chapters and foundations. He said every national Greek organization prohibits hazing, and the Yost decision was refreshing because it disposed of the complaint against the national Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.

“I think the community’s efforts to eliminate hazing are laudable and effective. However, the plaintiff’s bar has consistently tried to use these anti-hazing efforts as the linchpin to an argument that by enacting these very same anti-hazing efforts, the national organization has somehow become a guarantor of every individual’s well-being. That is not reasonable or fair,” Callan said.

But Wagner said national organizations do exert control and authority over their chapters. He noted the Delta Tau Delta charter at Wabash was revoked after Smith’s death.

The Yost case, Callan said, is likely to turn on Indiana’s definition of hazing. Unlike most of the 44 states with such statutes, Callan reads Indiana’s law to be predicated on activity forced on a victim as a condition of membership.

“Based upon this statutory definition, and the developed facts, the showering activity was simply not imposed as a condition of membership,” Callan said.

Attorneys for Yost, Wabash and the Indianapolis-based Phi Kappa Psi fraternity declined to comment, saying it would be inappropriate because of the pending Supreme Court arguments.•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT