Background
Washington State University recognized the Gamma Chi chapter of Alpha Tau Omega and provided it benefits including recruitment assistance, institutional support, and permission to use WSU’s name. In return, Gamma Chi annually agreed to university oversight and rules prohibiting hazing and underage alcohol consumption. WSU could investigate violations and impose sanctions ranging from warnings and educational requirements to loss of recognition and freshman-housing privileges.
WSU knew that fraternity members, especially first-year students, faced elevated risks from alcohol misuse and hazing. It also knew of Gamma Chi’s history of alcohol- and hazing-related incidents, including problems associated with its off-campus “live-out” house. In November 2019, 19-year-old freshman and Gamma Chi pledge Sam Martinez drank during the fraternity’s Big-Little initiation ritual at the live-out and later at the chapter house. He died from acute alcohol intoxication.
Martinez’s parents and estate sued WSU for wrongful death, alleging that its negligence contributed to his death. The trial court granted summary judgment to WSU, finding no duty of care. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that WSU’s special relationship with Gamma Chi created a duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315(a), and WSU sought review.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that WSU had a special relationship with Gamma Chi under § 315(a) because the university and fraternity had a definite, established, and continuing relationship, and WSU had sufficient ability to control the fraternity’s conduct. That relationship gave WSU insight into Gamma Chi’s alcohol and hazing risks and made incoming pledges such as Martinez foreseeable victims.
The court concluded that WSU owed Martinez a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect him from foreseeable harm caused by Gamma Chi’s alcohol misuse and hazing. WSU’s power to prescribe rules, monitor compliance, investigate misconduct, and withdraw substantial benefits supplied the requisite control, including as to fraternity conduct away from university property.
The court decided only the existence of a duty. It expressly did not determine whether WSU breached that duty or was ultimately liable for Martinez’s death. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A university’s definite and continuing relationship with a recognized fraternity may create a special relationship under Restatement § 315(a).
- WSU’s knowledge of recurring fraternity alcohol misuse and hazing, together with Gamma Chi’s disciplinary history, made harm to pledges such as Martinez foreseeable.
- The decision establishes a duty of reasonable care but leaves breach, causation, and ultimate liability for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision permits negligence claims against universities when their recognition agreements, oversight practices, and enforcement powers give them sufficient control over fraternities whose conduct foreseeably threatens students. The duty is not necessarily confined to university property or university-sponsored events.
The ruling does not make universities automatically liable for fraternity misconduct. Plaintiffs must still prove the remaining elements of negligence, including breach and causation, based on the university’s response to the foreseeable risk.