Elizabeth Brown v. Delta Tau Delta
118 A.3d 789
Me.2015Background
- Elizabeth Brown, a University of Maine student, was sexually assaulted in a Gamma Nu (Delta Tau Delta local chapter) member’s bedroom during a members-only party; both she and the assailant had been drinking.
- Brown reported the incident; the chapter had prior concerns about the assailant’s drinking and misconduct; the national fraternity’s chapter consultant and national office were notified and the member was later expelled.
- Brown sued the assailant, Delta Tau Delta (DTD, the national fraternity), and Delta Tau Delta National Housing Corporation (DTDNHC, the property-holding corporation) asserting assault, false imprisonment, negligence, premises liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability theories.
- The assailant was later dismissed after settlement; the trial court granted summary judgment for DTD and DTDNHC, concluding neither owed Brown a duty of care.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated summary judgment as to DTD on the premises-liability theory (holding a duty may exist) but affirmed dismissal of vicarious-liability claims and affirmed summary judgment for DTDNHC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a national fraternity (DTD) owed a duty of care to social invitees of a local chapter member (premises liability) | Brown: DTD’s integrated control, policies, oversight, and foreseeability of alcohol-related sexual assault create a premises-based duty to social invitees | DTD: It did not own or possess the house, lacked day-to-day control over premises and members’ conduct, and thus owed no premises duty to a member’s guest | Held: Vacated summary judgment as to DTD on premises liability — court found foreseeability, control, and relationship sufficient to impose a premises-based duty on DTD to social invitees |
| Whether a ‘‘special relationship’’ or other basis supports general negligence or bystander emotional-distress claims against DTD | Brown: DTD’s control, disciplinary structure, and integration with chapters create a special relationship or basis for broader negligence and emotional-distress liability | DTD: Absent a special relationship with the injured social invitee, there is no general duty to prevent third-party intentional torts | Held: Summary judgment on general negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against DTD affirmed (no special relationship shown for those claims) |
| Whether DTDNHC (the holding/owner corporation) owed a duty under premises liability or negligence | Brown: As the building owner/lessor, DTDNHC had responsibility analogous to an educational institution or dorm owner | DTDNHC: No record basis that the housing corporation had a duty to Gamma Nu’s social invitees | Held: Summary judgment for DTDNHC affirmed — record lacked evidence DTDNHC owed duty to social invitees |
| Whether vicarious liability of DTD/DTDNHC for the member’s intentional torts was permissible | Brown: National organization should be vicariously liable given its role and control | Defendants: No agency or employment relationship; assailant was not acting as agent of DTD/DTDNHC | Held: Dismissal of vicarious-liability claims affirmed (no agency/ respondeat superior) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanton v. Univ. of Me. Sys., 773 A.2d 1045 (Me. 2001) (university owed duty under premises-liability principles to warn/advise students of foreseeable sexual-assault risks in dormitories)
- Grenier v. Comm’r of Transp., 51 A.3d 367 (Conn. 2012) (national fraternity liability depends on ability to control local chapter and knowledge that risk-management policies are not followed)
- DeCambra v. Carson, 953 A.2d 1163 (Me. 2008) (absent a special relationship there is no general obligation to protect others from third-party actions)
- Hughes v. Beta Upsilon Bldg. Ass’n, 619 A.2d 525 (Me. 1993) (duty analysis considers control, foreseeability, and relationship recognized by society)
- Schultz v. Gould Acad., 332 A.2d 368 (Me. 1975) (owner/educational institution owed duty to students in boarding/dormitory context to exercise reasonable care for their safety)
- Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, 738 So.2d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 1999) (national fraternity owed duty where it had oversight and knew of prior hazing or misconduct)