403 F.Supp.3d 421
M.D. Penn.2019Background
- Timothy Piazza, a 19-year-old pledge at Penn State Beta Theta Pi (Alpha Upsilon), attended a Bid Acceptance Night on Feb 2, 2017 during which fraternity members ran a multi‑station drinking "Gauntlet." He consumed ~18 drinks in ~90 minutes and became visibly intoxicated.
- After an initial fall down basement stairs, fraternity members moved, attended to, restrained, and repeatedly left Timothy unattended while he remained unconscious and vomiting; he suffered further falls and head injuries and died Feb 4, 2017.
- Plaintiffs James and Evelyn Piazza sued 28 fraternity members and St. Moritz Security Services on multiple tort theories (negligence, negligence per se, battery, civil conspiracy, IIED, punitive damages, etc.). Defendants moved to dismiss and several moved to stay civil proceedings pending related criminal cases.
- Key contested legal questions included: whether fraternity members owed a duty to pledges; whether statutory violations (anti‑hazing, furnishing alcohol to minors) support negligence per se; whether certain defendants assumed post‑fall duties; and whether civil proceedings should be stayed due to parallel criminal prosecutions.
- The court accepted plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes and denied dismissal of most claims, granting limited dismissals where allegations were insufficient and allowing targeted stays for defendants asserting Fifth Amendment concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of care / negligence (Counts I–II) | Kenner-based duty: fraternity members owed pledges a duty to prevent hazing and protect them during initiation | Some defendants (esp. under‑21) argued Kapres/social host limits bar liability for furnishing alcohol or broader duty | Court: duty exists under Kenner given foreseeability, fraternity rules banning hazing; plaintiffs plausibly pleaded breach and causation — Counts I–II survive |
| Post‑fall duty / Good Samaritan (Count III) | Plaintiffs: members who assisted or took charge of Timothy assumed a duty and breached it by failing to obtain medical help | Defendants: no duty unless clear voluntary assumption of care | Court: claims survive against individuals who carried/assisted and restrained Timothy (e.g., Kenyon, Kubera, Burke, Visser, Neuman, Prior, Coyne, Casey, Ems); dismissed without prejudice as to others who merely observed (e.g., Young, DiBileo, Gilmartin, Martines) |
| Negligence per se — hazing and furnishing alcohol (Counts IV–V) | Hazing statute criminalizes forced consumption; violation supports negligence per se for anti‑hazing claim | Defendants argue statutory schemes and social host precedents (Kapres) limit or preclude such statutory negligence per se theories, esp. re: minors serving minors | Court: Count IV (hazing) survives under negligence‑per‑se framework; Count V (furnishing alcohol to minors) dismissed without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to plead which defendants were over 21 (Kapres limits) |
| Stay of civil proceedings pending criminal cases | Plaintiffs oppose broad stays; seek civil progress | Several defendants sought stay to avoid Fifth Amendment self‑incrimination in civil discovery given overlapping criminal charges | Court: granted a limited stay for specific defendants (O’Brien, Song, Becker, Young, Casey) — they need not participate in discovery or plead if it would implicate Fifth Amendment, but must participate where no self‑incrimination risk; Kubera’s stay denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., 808 A.2d 178 (Pa. Super. 2002) (fraternity members/officers can owe pledges a duty to prevent hazing)
- Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1994) (Pennsylvania declined to extend general social‑host liability; narrow exception applies re: adults furnishing alcohol to minors)
- Filter v. McCabe, 733 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 1999) (voluntary assumption of care can create a post‑injury duty under Restatement §§323–324)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead facts plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
- Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (clarifies pleading standards interpreting Iqbal/Twombly)
- Papieves v. Lawrence, 263 A.2d 118 (Pa. 1970) (recognition of claims based on intentional, outrageous mishandling of a decedent’s body; discussed re: IIED but distinguished)