31 N.E.3d 501
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Andrew Meyer (over 21) and Beta Tau fraternity members, including Daniel Meals, were intoxicated after separate drinking earlier the night; an altercation at about 3:00 a.m. at the 803 Brown Street fraternity house left Meyer injured.
- Meyer had a prior 2008 incident with Meals (urine on truck; punch) that was never formally reported to the fraternity.
- House Corporation owns the fraternity houses; Beta Tau is the local chapter; Sigma Pi is the national fraternity. Sigma Pi and House Corporation do not run day-to-day activities; alumni volunteers (including Quentin Calder, House Corp. president) advise and liaise.
- After Meyer filed a police report, Calder sent a letter and later an email banning Meyer from the fraternity properties; letter criticized Meyer and recommended he avoid the premises.
- Meyer sued defendants for negligence (Sigma Pi, Beta Tau, House Corporation), Dram Shop Act violation (Beta Tau), and defamation (Calder and House Corporation). The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Meyer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sigma Pi assumed a duty to inform/guide local chapters re: alcohol that could make it liable for Meyer’s injuries | Sigma Pi voluntarily undertook a duty by adopting bylaws, FIPG risk policies, providing materials, and disciplining chapters, so it owed and breached a duty to inform/guide | Sigma Pi’s role was educational/advisory only; it did not assume control or a duty to prevent local-member misconduct; any breach did not proximately cause the altercation | No duty (as matter of law); even if a limited duty assumed, any alleged breach did not proximately cause Meyer’s injury — summary judgment for Sigma Pi affirmed |
| Whether Beta Tau (local chapter) had duty and breached it by failing to provide security at the gathering | As the local chapter that selects party security, Beta Tau had a duty to protect members/guests at its parties and failed to do so here | The gathering at 803 was an informal small gathering (3–4 people), not a fraternity-sanctioned party requiring security; no breach occurred | Beta Tau had no duty to provide security at this informal gathering; summary judgment for Beta Tau affirmed |
| Whether House Corporation (landowner) was negligent by failing to protect invitee from third-party assault | House Corporation, as owner, owed invitees reasonable care to prevent foreseeable third-party harm | The fight was not reasonably foreseeable: small late-night gathering, no prior similar incidents reported to corporation, and the altercation stemmed from provocation by Meyer | No foreseeable risk as matter of law; summary judgment for House Corporation affirmed |
| Whether Beta Tau violated the Dram Shop Act by furnishing alcohol to Meals while knowing he was visibly intoxicated | Meyer: evidence of shared/common alcohol (bar, refrigerator) permits inference Beta Tau furnished alcohol and knew Meals was intoxicated; proximate cause of assault | Beta Tau: no evidence it furnished alcohol to Meals or had actual knowledge of intoxication; observations are too vague and do not show visible intoxication | Plaintiff failed to show Beta Tau furnished alcohol or had actual knowledge of intoxication; summary judgment for Beta Tau affirmed |
| Whether Calder/House Corporation committed defamation by the Letter banning Meyer | Meyer: Letter contained verifiable factual imputation accusing him of vendetta and recklessness, harming reputation; factual meaning for jury | Calder/House Corporation: statements were opinion and protected by common-interest qualified privilege; Calder acted in good faith after consulting others; alternatively, Calder is a volunteer shielded by Volunteer Protection Act | Even if defamatory meaning possible, common-interest privilege applies as a matter of law (Calder acted in good faith); Volunteer Protection Act also shields volunteer conduct; summary judgment for Calder and House Corporation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yost v. Wabash College, 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (national fraternity’s educational outreach does not create an assumed duty to directly supervise local members)
- Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 154 (Ind. 2014) (national fraternity’s informational role and discipline of chapters does not establish a duty to prevent local-member hazing or intoxication injuries)
- Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (national fraternity liability principles concerning local chapter conduct)
- Winfrey v. NLMP, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (summary judgment standard for negligence elements)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (landowner’s duty extends only to reasonably foreseeable third-party conduct)