ILNews

National fraternity not entitled to summary judgment in wrongful death case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The national organization of a Wabash College fraternity where a freshman pledge died after a night of heavy drinking is not entitled to summary judgment on the student’s parents’ claims arising from his wrongful death, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Johnny Dupree Smith was a freshman at Wabash in Crawfordsville and a pledge at the Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta. During “hell week,” Smith drank heavily at a party, some of which he did while participating in a “pledge family drink night.” The morning after the party, he was found unresponsive. The coroner determined he had been dead for several hours and his blood alcohol content was nearly 0.40 percent.

His parents, Stacy and Robert Smith, sued the school, local chapter of the fraternity, the national organization, and the chapter's risk manager, alleging violations of the hazing statute and the dram shop laws and asserted a claim of negligence against Delta Tau Delta.

Delta Tau Delta has a constitution, bylaws, and member responsibility guidelines that provide policies and rules for both individual and chapter expectations, including a prohibition of hazing and providing alcohol to pledges, requires its local chapters to comply with its rules, and enforces its rules at the chapter level in a variety of ways. Delta Tau Delta also mandated that each new member of the fraternity must complete an alcohol education program.

Delta Tau Delta filed a motion for summary judgment claiming Beta Psi’s individual members were not acting as agents of Delta Tau Delta and the national fraternity had not assumed a duty to the pledges of its local chapter to protect them from hazing and the danger of excessive alcohol consumption.

“To be sure, we are presented with a very narrow legal issue today. The parties are not alleging that an actual violation of the hazing statute or dram shop laws occurred; rather, we are requested to determine whether the national fraternity assumed a duty to its pledges or an agency relationship existed with the local chapter which could propel Delta Tau Delta within the purview of liability if the perceived violations of the hazing statute and dram shop laws took place,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote in Stacy Smith and Robert Smith, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Johnny Dupree Smith, Deceased v. Delta Tau Delta, Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta, Wabash Col., et al., 54A01-1204-CT-169.

The trial court had denied the Smiths’ motions to strike the affidavit of James Russell, Delta Tau Delta’s executive vice president, and two unsworn and uncertified statements made to police by witnesses. The trial court granted summary judgment for the national organization, the only defendant that the COA ruled on Wednesday.  

Several of the paragraphs showed contradictions as to the level of involvement the national organization has with local chapters, the Court of Appeals pointed out. And the two statements made by witnesses pertaining to the events around Johnny Smith’s death fall within the provision of investigative police reports and are inadmissible as hearsay under Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8).

The judges found that a genuine issue of material fact remains whether this level of influence alone is sufficient to find that the fraternity assumed a duty to protect its pledges from hazing and excessive alcohol consumption, the court held. The judges also found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an agency relationship existed between the national organization and the local chapter.

Judge John Baker wrote a separate opinion in which he concurred in result with the majority and most of its analysis. But he believed the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Smiths’ request to strike Paragraph 6 of Russell’s affidavit regarding the handling of local chapter affairs.

 

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