OLYMPIA, Wash. (CN) — The Washington Court of Appeals Tuesday revived negligence claims brought by the family of a Washington State University freshman who died from alcohol poisoning during a fraternity hazing ritual.
The appeals court determined that the school had a duty to protect the student from the “foreseeable harms of hazing and alcohol misuse” due to its special relationship with its recognized fraternities, Judge Bill Bowman wrote in the opinion that overturned a lower court’s judgment in favor of the university.
Sam Martinez joined the Gamma Chi fraternity at Washington State University in 2019 during his freshman year. The fraternity has been recognized by the southeastern Washington school continuously since 1911. Following a new member event in November, the 19-year-old student was found unresponsive on a couch in the fraternity house’s basement with vomit on his mouth.
Martinez had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.372 and his death was attributed to alcohol poisoning. Following his death, the school revoked its recognition of the fraternity and the national chapter removed its charter from the campus.
The following year, Martinez’s family sued the university on claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The lower court found in favor of the university, concluding there was no “special relationship” creating a duty the school owed to Martinez.
On appeal, the Martinez family argued that the school owed their son a duty of care and that the state’s antihazing statute bolstered that point. The court did not agree, finding that under the statute’s plain language universities are not required to proactively prevent hazing.
“Accordingly, we hold that the antihazing statutes impose a duty on universities to create administrative rules to sanction persons and organizations for acts of hazing,” Bowman wrote. “Nothing more.”
The school didn’t have an express or implied statutory duty to protect Martinez from hazing either, the court found. On that front, the lower court correctly granted the school summary judgment.
The Washington Court of Appeals initially paused proceedings until the state Supreme Court issued its decision in Barlow v. State, a case also involving a student at Washington State University. In Barlow, a student sued the school for negligence after a fellow student raped her at an off-campus apartment.
In resolving the case, the Washington Supreme Court clarified that state law recognizes a special duty of care only when the person is “helpless, totally dependent, or under the complete control of someone else for decisions relating to their safety.”
As such, the appeals court found since Martinez’s family presented no evidence that he was helpless or otherwise required special attention, the school did not owe him a duty,
Under Barlow, the Supreme Court also limited a university’s duty to “where a student is on campus for school-related or purposes or participating in a school activity.”
Martinez’s family argued that the school’s promotion and encouragement to participate in fraternity activities created a duty on the school, but the appeals court was not convinced.
“And, even given the broadest reading to which it is reasonably susceptible,WSU’s act of promoting participation in fraternities does not qualify as part of its educational program,” Bowman wrote.
However, while Barlow clarified that schools don’t have a duty to control the actions of individual students, the holding doesn’t control the relationship between a school and a fraternity.
“The relationship between WSU and Gamma Chi is unlike WSU’s relationship with an individual student, as was the case in Barlow,” Bowman wrote.
The school doesn’t require each of its 20,000 or so students to enter into fraternity relationship agreements and university-approved housing contracts but does require that of its fraternal organizations.
There are numerous requirements imposed upon fraternal organizations that students are not subject to, and therein creates a special relationship between the school and fraternities, the court found.
“Through its relationship with Gamma Chi, WSU had insight into the dangers of Gamma Chi’s hazing activities and permissive use of alcohol,” Bowman wrote. “And it could reasonably identify Gamma Chi’s student pledges as potential victims of those activities”
The school’s ability to regulate and control Gamma Chi — through warnings, reprimands, fines, suspension, withdrawal or recognition and other penalties — underscored its special relationship.
On that basis, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the school.