24 N.E.3d 509
Ind.2014Background
- Brian Yost, an 18‑year‑old Wabash College freshman and pledge of Phi Kappa Psi (Indiana Gamma), was injured in September 2007 at the fraternity house; he sued Wabash College (owner/landlord), the local chapter, the national fraternity, and a student member.
- The incident occurred inside the fraternity house while active members and pledges were present; facts permit characterization as either hazing or horseplay.
- Wabash leased the house to the local fraternity; the local chapter had exclusive possession and ran day‑to‑day house and pledge activities.
- Wabash and the national fraternity had anti‑hazing policies, educational outreach, investigatory and disciplinary procedures, and limited contractual rights (e.g., right to revoke charters or entry).
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Wabash, the national fraternity, and the local chapter; Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed summary judgment for Wabash and the national fraternity but reversed as to the local chapter and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wabash (landlord) owe Yost a premises/landlord duty to protect him from foreseeable criminal/hazing acts? | Yost: as lessor Wabash had a duty to control Phi Psi and protect invitees on its property. | Wabash: leased premises to tenant; tenant had exclusive control so Wabash had no duty. | Held: No duty — Wabash relinquished control to tenant; summary judgment for Wabash. |
| Did Wabash assume a special duty (gratuitous undertaking) to protect against hazing by its policies and enforcement? | Yost: Wabash’s anti‑hazing rules, investigations, and Gentlemen’s Rule amounted to an assumed duty to supervise/ protect. | Wabash: policies were general, educational, and did not create specific undertaking or control of daily student conduct. | Held: No assumed duty — policies were aspirational/educational and did not show specific undertaking; summary judgment for Wabash. |
| Is Wabash vicariously liable for local chapter members (agency/master‑servant)? | Yost: lease, right of entry, and discipline practices show manifestation of control and agency. | Wabash: no evidence local chapter acted on Wabash’s behalf or consented to act as its agent. | Held: No agency relationship shown; no vicarious liability as a matter of law. |
| Are the national fraternity and the local chapter liable (duty, assumed duty, vicarious liability; punitive damages)? | Yost: national breached general/assumed duties by inadequate oversight; local assumed duty to supervise pledges and may be vicariously/grossly liable; punitive damages appropriate for local. | National: relationship is remote; provided only guidelines/charter rights, not day‑to‑day control. Local: argued no legal basis for summary judgment. | Held: National — no duty, no assumed duty, no agency; summary judgment affirmed. Local — genuine issues of material fact exist on assumed duty, breach, proximate causation, and punitive damages; summary judgment reversed and case remanded as to local chapter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (elements of negligence and duty analysis)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (landowner duty to invitees; adoption of Restatement §343)
- L.W. v. Western Golf Ass'n, 712 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. 1999) (landowner duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts)
- Olds v. Noel, 857 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (landlord liability when tenant has full control and possession)
- Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) (vicarious liability/agency and employer responsibility)