Andrew J. Rogers v. Sigma Chi International Fraternity, Theta Pi of Sigma Chi, Ancil Jackson, Brian Mifflin, Jr., and Joshua Kearby
9 N.E.3d 755
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Rogers was assaulted at an August 2008 party held at a privately rented house in Terre Haute; he sued Sigma Chi International (the International), its local chapter (the Chapter), and three Sigma Chi members who lived at the house (Individual Defendants).
- The house was leased from R2r Properties, LLC; the Chapter did not own or pay for the house, the Chapter president did not live there, Chapter mail was not delivered there, and chapter business occurred on campus.
- The party was organized by tenant Daniel Johnson (not a party to this appeal question); the Facebook invitation identified the location as "the new house" and stated it was not a rush event; Sigma Chi did not sponsor, pay for, control, or authorize the party.
- Rogers was invited by Johnson; while intoxicated he was punched by Dana Scifres (not a Sigma Chi member); the Individual Defendants were not present when the assault occurred.
- At the house there were some fraternity materials and a Chapter checkbook in a resident’s bedroom, and some ritual items were stored there, but multiple nonmembers also lived at the leased premises.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants; Rogers appealed arguing premises liability, negligence (foreseeability or assumed duty), and vicarious liability based on apparent agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sigma Chi had control of the premises for premises liability | Rogers: Chapter effectively possessed the house ("chapter house"), giving Sigma Chi duty as possessor | Sigma Chi: tenants leased and controlled the house; Chapter did not occupy or control premises | No — Sigma Chi did not possess or control the premises; summary judgment proper |
| Whether defendants had a duty to protect Rogers because the assault was foreseeable | Rogers: facts (fraternity presence, party, alcohol) made the assault foreseeable | Defendants: no prior similar incidents or notice; party not organized or controlled by Sigma Chi; attack not reasonably foreseeable | No — attack was not foreseeable as a matter of law; no duty to protect |
| Whether defendants assumed a duty to protect Rogers (special relationship/voluntary undertaking) | Rogers: by hosting/participating in the fraternity party, defendants assumed protective duties | Defendants: no affirmative undertaking; defendants didn’t plan, sponsor, monitor, or agree to protect guests; Individual Defendants absent at time | No — no affirmative conduct showing assumption of duty; summary judgment proper |
| Whether International is vicariously liable via apparent authority over Chapter/members | Rogers: he reasonably believed the Chapter/members acted for the International (apparent authority) | International: made no manifestations to Rogers; presence of materials in private home insufficient to show principal’s manifestation | No — no principal manifestations creating apparent agency; International not vicariously liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Northside Fin. Corp., 452 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 1983) (summary judgment standards)
- Butler v. City of Indianapolis, 668 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind. 1996) (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (control of premises determines duty in premises liability)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (adopting Restatement standard for land possessor liability)
- Carroll by Carroll v. Jagoe Homes, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (definition of possessor under Restatement)
- Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts; totality of circumstances test)
- Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (foreseeability of sexual assault where prior incidents and notice existed)
- Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (assumption of duty; special relationship requirements)
- Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) (apparent authority principle and principal’s necessary manifestations)
- Cain Family Farm, L.P. v. Schrader Real Estate & Auction Co., Inc., 991 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (apparent authority requires principal-made manifestations)