Washington high court finds state university can be held liable over hazing death

“It should surprise no one that a house run by young men and full of other young men, many away from home for the first time in their lives, is fertile ground for abusing alcohol and engaging in dangerous initiation rituals," Supreme Court Justice Sal Mangia wrote.OLYMPIA, Wash. (CN) — A split Washington Supreme Court on Thursday found that Washington State University owed a duty to protect a freshman who died from alcohol poisoning during a fraternity hazing ritual in 2019.In a 5-4 ruling, the high court affirmed a ruling from the state Court of Appeals, holding that the university had a special relationship with the fraternity and therefore owed a duty of care to the student, 19-year-old Sam Martinez.“If fraternities remained separate from the university, WSU would not have control over fraternities and instead student activities at fraternity houses and fraternity functions would be free of university control,” Washington Supreme Court Justice Sal Mangia wrote for the majority. “But that is not the case.”Martinez joined the Gamma Chi fraternity at Washington State University — the school’s chapter of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity (ATO National) — in 2019 during his freshman year. Following a new member event that November, the 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 0.375, and his death was attributed to alcohol poisoning. The incident caused the school to revoke its recognition of the fraternity, and the national chapter removed its charter from the campus.His family sued the school — located in Pullman, Washington, around 75 miles south of Spokane — and a trial court ruled in the school’s favor, finding it didn’t owe any duty to Martinez. The Washington Court of Appeals overturned the ruling.Central to the state Supreme Court’s decision was the relationship between the university and its Greek system.“WSU and the Greek system have concluded that they both benefit by entering into a relationship,” Mangia wrote.The fraternities benefit from institutional support and promotion, and the university benefits from the additional housing fraternities provide for first-year students.The school imposes rules on fraternities regarding alcohol use, explicitly barring underage drinking and alcohol use at any events held on chapter property.The Supreme Court found that while the school had formal rules concerning fraternity alcohol consumption, it had long been aware of repeated violations.“WSU has known for years that fraternities in general, and Gamma Chi in particular, have engaged in alcohol misuse and hazing that have put their members and potential members at risk,” Mangia wrote.For instance, the university convened a special task force in 2012 to address underage drinking and drug use, finding that students in the Greek community were at a higher risk for binge drinking-related harm.In 2013, the school’s conduct board sanctioned Gamma Chi with loss of chapter recognition for a hazing incident involving alcohol. In 2017, a parent reported her freshman son was forced to drink large quantities of alcohol as part of a hazing ritual.Despite this, the school neglected to tell Martinez or his family about the chapter’s history of allowing underage drinking and hazing its members.“Not only was the harm of alcohol abuse and hazing for Gamma Chi pledges foreseeable to WSU, but the university had the ability to exercise control over the fraternity to address these dangers,” Mangia wrote. “Therefore, under § 315(a), WSU owed Sam a duty to take reasonable actions to prevent harm to him arising out of Gamma Chi’s alcohol and hazing misconduct.”The school argued the Supreme Court’s holding in Barlow v. Stateshielded it from liability. In *Barlow,*a Washington State University student was assaulted by a peer at an off-campus party and the high court determined the school didn’t have liability.Unlike Barlow, however, this case concerns the relationship between the school and its fraternities rather than individual students.“Any failure by WSU to exercise control did not mean it lacked the ability to do so,” Mangia wrote.The school had sufficient ability to control Gamma Chi by imposing alcohol- and hazing-related conditions, reporting and investigating violations, imposing sanctions and revoking recognition, Mangia noted.“It should surprise no one that a house run by young men and full of other young men, many away from home for the first time in their lives, is fertile ground for abusing alcohol and engaging in dangerous initiation rituals,” Mangia wrote. “It was certainly no surprise to WSU.”Mangia noted the opinion, of which four other justices concurred, doesn’t express an opinion on whether the school breached its duty of care to Martinez, but simply that it did, in fact, owe Martinez such a duty.Washington Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen, joined by three other justices, dissented from the majority, describing the relationship between the school and its fraternities as more of a contractual business relationship rather than a special relationship giving rise to duty.“​​Gamma Chi does not have such an intimate relationship with WSU ― one that is akin to a patient with their psychiatrist or a parolee with their parole officer,” Madsen wrote. “The nature of their relationship is a contractual one that defines the boundaries of their relationship and confers mutual benefits to one another.”In a statement, Washington State University said it “remains committed to student safety and to continually strengthening its policies, education, and oversight related to hazing prevention and alcohol misuse,” but declined to comment further on specifics of the case, citing the ongoing litigation.The Martinez family did not respond to a request for comment before press time.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads