ILNews

Wabash fraternity must face alleged hazing-injury claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A freshman pledge’s personal-injury claim resulting from what he alleged was a hazing incident at Wabash College may proceed against the campus fraternity, and he may seek compensatory and punitive damages, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday, overturning lower court rulings.

But lower courts properly found that the college and national fraternity should bear no liability for injuries sustained by Brian Yost.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson affirmed trial court summary judgment in favor of the college and the national chapter of Phi Kappa Psi Inc., but reversed judgment for the Phi Kappa Psi’s Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash.

“The local fraternity’s rules and traditions arguably may have provided the active members of the fraternity with authority over the pledges, including Yost, and the exercise of such authority may have played a role in the events that led to Yost's injury. For instance, Yost’s injury occurred when the local fraternity brothers attempted to forcibly place him in the shower, an act which resembles a celebratory tradition of the local fraternity,” Dickson wrote.

Brian Yost was 18 when he suffered injuries that forced him to withdraw from Wabash. Yost was dropped on the floor during a “showering” incident. A trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the college and fraternity interests, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed

“We conclude that, because Wabash, as landlord, had relinquished control of the house to the local fraternity, because any duties assumed by Wabash did not extend to direct oversight and control of individual students living in the house, and because of the absence of any viarious liability of Wabash arising from any agency relationship between Wabash and the local fraternity, Wabash is entitled to summary judgment in its favor,” Dickson wrote for the 4-1 majority.

The national fraternity had encouraged good behavior by individuals and had no control over the management of local fraternity residents, Dickson wrote.

“There is no genuine issue of fact tending to show the existence of an agency relationship, and thus the actions of the local fraternity and its members cannot, as a matter of law, be imputed to the national fraternity under a theory of vicarious liability,” he wrote for the majority in affirming judgment in favor of the national Phi Kappa Psi, based in Indianapolis.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented from the opinion in Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity-Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., and Nathan Cravens, 54S01-1303-CT-161, and would have also permitted a liability suit to proceed against Wabash College as well as the local fraternity. Rucker agreed that judgment for the national fraternity was proper.

Wabash had not given full control and possession of the property it leased to the local fraternity, Rucker wrote. “(A)s a landowner Wabash owed Yost – an invitee – ‘a duty to exercise reasonable care for his protection’ while on Wabash’s premises.

“Because Wabash in my view has not carried its burden of proof on this outcome-determinative issue, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment cannot be sustained on grounds that Wabash owed Yost no duty,” Rucker wrote.

Justices took more than nine months to issue an opinion in the case after oral arguments took place April 23 at Indiana University East in Richmond.
 
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT