Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens, 976 N.E.2d 724

Background

Yost, an 18-year-old freshman, participated in fraternity activities that culminated in him being placed in a chokehold and dropped, causing physical and mental injuries.
The incident occurred at approximately 1:00 a.m. on September 4, 2007, at the Phi Psi fraternity house owned/controlled by Wabash College.
Prior related events included earlier creeking attempts and an escalated showering attempt; Cravens joined the group and used a chokehold.
Yost sued Cravens, the Phi Psi Defendants, and Wabash for compensatory and punitive damages; Cravens’ claims were unresolved at summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants, concluding Yost’s injuries did not arise from hazing or a breach of duty; Yost appealed.
The court held that, as a matter of law, Wabash did not owe a duty to protect Yost from the conduct at issue and that Yost failed to establish breach or punitive damages; the court discussed various theories (premises liability, assumption of duty, vicarious liability) but affirmed summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Appellees owe a duty to protect Yost from third-party conduct?	Yost contends duty arises from landowner/premises liability and foreseeability of hazing.	Appellees lacked a duty absent a special relationship or breach of a well-defined duty; no hazing occurred as a matter of law.	No: no breach found; no duty breached as a matter of law.
Did Appellees assume a duty to protect Yost?	Phi Psi/National policies and supervision created an assumed duty to protect pledges.	No explicit undertaking; no evidence of deliberate assumption; waiver applies to some arguments.	No: no assumed duty established as a matter of law.
Are Wabash or Phi Psi vicariously liable for Cravens' actions?	Agency or respondeat superior theories based on landlord/tenant or college/student relationships.	No control or employment relationship; no agency; local chapter actions not controlled by Wabash.	No: no vicarious liability established.
Is punitive damages liability viable here?	Punitive damages may be awarded for malice or gross negligence.	No viable underlying compensatory claim; punitive damages require compensatory claim.	No: punitive damages not viable absent compensatory claim.

Key Cases Cited

Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (landowner duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts; totality of circumstances discussed)
Vernon v. Kroger Co., 712 N.E.2d 976 (Ind. 1999) (foreseeability element of landowner duty; store context)
L.W. v. Western Golf Ass’n, 712 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. 1999) (foreseeability and duty in a landowner context; magnitude of foreseeability)
Swanson v. Wabash College, 504 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (no apparent agency; college not liable for off-campus activity by a student)
Campbell v. Bd. of Trs. of Wabash Coll., 495 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (in loco parentis rejected for college-age students; no parental duty)
Furek v. Univ. of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991) (assumption of duty where university incontrol of dangerous hazing activities)
Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, 738 So.2d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 1999) (assumption of duty to prevent hazing due to knowledge of prior incidents)
Oja v. Grand Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity Inc., 255 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (limits on responsibility for hazing in fraternity context; foreseen risks)
Garfalo v. Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, 616 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2000) (summary judgment where hazing not proven; alcohol-related cases)
Foster v. Purdue Univ. Chapter, The Beta Mu of Beta Theta Pi, 567 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (court rejected assumed duty based on chapter-by-laws and advisory materials)
Garofalo v. Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, 616 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2000) (liability in hazing context; alcohol-related and supervision factors)