Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc.
2018 IL 120951
| Ill. | 2018Background
- David Bogenberger, an NIU freshman and prospective pledge of Pi Kappa Alpha (Eta Nu), attended a mandatory "Mom and Dad’s Night" pledge event where pledges were required to consume large quantities of vodka; David became unconscious and died (BAC 0.43).
- The complaint alleged detailed planning by NIU chapter officers and members (designated rooms, rotation, deliberate over-service, placement of "pass out" areas, Breathalyzer checks, instructions to delete photos, and discouragement of calling 911).
- Plaintiff (special administrator) filed a 12‑count fifth amended negligence complaint against Pi Kappa Alpha national organizations (Nationals), the NIU chapter, chapter officers/pledge board/active members, and participating nonmember sorority women; claims invoked Wrongful Death and Survival Acts.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint in full under 735 ILCS 5/2‑615; the appellate court affirmed dismissal as to Nationals and nonmember women but reversed dismissal as to the local chapter and members and remanded.
- The Illinois Supreme Court: affirmed dismissal of Nationals’ counts, reversed dismissal as to local chapter/officers/active members (allowing those counts to proceed), and reversed the appellate court as to nonmember sorority women (allowing those counts to proceed); remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether social‑host rule bars claims | Bogenberger: hazing that requires drinking is not a typical social‑host situation and should be actionable | Defendants: Illinois rejects social‑host liability outside Dramshop Act; no duty exists | Court: social‑host rule is inapplicable to alcohol‑related hazing that requires consumption for admission (narrow exception) |
| Whether Nationals are vicariously liable via agency/respondeat superior | Nationals exercised control over chapters (policies, consultants, sanctions) creating agency or scope for vicarious liability | Nationals lacked actual control; remedial powers are post‑hoc and insufficient for agency; hazing was outside any scope | Court: pleadings failed to allege facts establishing an agency relationship; vicarious liability dismissed |
| Whether Nationals owe a direct duty based on affirmative acts/omissions | Bogenberger: Nationals encouraged/authorized retention‑promoting events, maintained risk manuals and audits, and failed to prevent or enforce antihazing measures, creating a duty | Nationals: no special relationship with pledges or local members; imposing duty would be an unrealistic burden; no day‑to‑day control | Court: plaintiffs did not plead a legally recognized special relationship sufficient to impose an affirmative duty on Nationals; direct‑liability counts dismissed |
| Whether local chapter/officers/active members/nonmember women owed a duty | Bogenberger: chapter and participants planned, required, and administered forced drinking in violation of hazing law; they withheld/denied medical care | Defendants: social‑host rule/no duty; nonmembers cannot "require" pledges under hazing statute; pleadings are conclusory | Court: duty exists for local chapter, officers, and active members (foreseeability, likelihood, small burden). Nonmember sorority women also owe a duty because they actively participated and influenced pledges; those counts may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles v. Seigfried, 165 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1995) (Illinois rejects social‑host liability outside Dramshop Act)
- Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223 (Ill. 2003) (reaffirming that Illinois declines to impose social‑host liability and discussing Quinn/Haben exceptions)
- Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, 2012 IL 110662 (Ill. 2012) (articulates the four traditional duty‑factors and duty analysis)
- Quinn v. Sigma Rho Chapter of the Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 155 Ill. App. 3d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (appellate decision recognizing liability where required drinking was part of hazing)
- Haben v. Anderson, 232 Ill. App. 3d 260 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (similar to Quinn; required drinking to gain membership can support liability)
- Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78 (Ill. 2007) (no affirmative duty to control third parties absent a special relationship)