Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson
712 N.E.2d 968 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect an invitee from the foreseeable criminal acts of a third party. To determine whether a criminal act was foreseeable, courts must apply the totality of the circumstances test, which considers all relevant factors, including prior similar incidents, without being limited by their absence.
Facts:
- On October 13, 1990, Tracey Johnson, a university student, was an invited guest at a party hosted by the Delta Tau Delta (DTD) fraternity at its chapter house.
- At the party, fraternity pledges served beer from a keg in a crowded and chaotic courtyard.
- Joseph Motz, a fraternity alumnus, brought his own case of beer to the house and drank several before encountering Johnson.
- Around midnight, when Johnson could not find her friends to leave, Motz offered to drive her home after he sobered up, and she agreed to wait with him in a room.
- Johnson and Motz waited together in room C17, where they and other guests consumed hard liquor.
- Between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m., after Johnson was unsuccessful in finding another ride, Motz locked them both inside the room and sexually assaulted her.
- In the two years prior to the assault, DTD's chapter house had been the site of two separate incidents involving an assault and forced drinking.
- One month before the incident, DTD's national organization provided the chapter with materials detailing the high risk of rape and sexual assault at fraternities, particularly involving alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracey Johnson filed a civil lawsuit against Joseph Motz, Delta Tau Delta Beta Alpha Chapter (DTD), and Delta Tau Delta National Fraternity (National) in an Indiana trial court.
- DTD and National both filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they did not owe Johnson a duty of care.
- The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment.
- DTD and National, as appellants, filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling, finding summary judgment should have been granted in favor of DTD and National.
- Johnson, as appellee in the intermediate appeal, petitioned for transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a social host landowner owe a duty of reasonable care to protect an invited guest from the foreseeable criminal acts of a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Selby, J.
Yes. A social host landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to protect an invited guest from the foreseeable criminal acts of a third party. The court adopted the totality of the circumstances test to determine foreseeability. Under Indiana law, a social guest is considered an invitee, to whom a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care. The court reviewed four tests used to determine if a third party's criminal act is foreseeable: (1) specific harm, (2) prior similar incidents (PSI), (3) totality of the circumstances, and (4) balancing. The court rejected the specific harm and PSI tests as too restrictive and potentially unfair, noting the PSI test unfairly absolves a landowner of liability for the first instance of a particular crime. It adopted the totality of the circumstances test, which allows courts to consider all relevant factors, including the nature and location of the land and prior incidents, without making any single factor dispositive. Applying this test, the court found the sexual assault was foreseeable to DTD. The fraternity had knowledge of two prior incidents involving assault and forced drinking at the chapter house and had received specific warnings from its national organization about the high risk of sexual assault at fraternity parties involving alcohol. Given these facts, DTD was on notice of the potential danger and thus owed Johnson a duty to take reasonable care for her protection.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the 'totality of the circumstances' test in Indiana for determining a landowner's duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts. It moves Indiana away from more rigid tests like the 'prior similar incidents' rule, thereby potentially expanding the scope of liability for landowners, including social hosts. The ruling emphasizes that foreseeability is a broad inquiry and that a lack of identical prior crimes does not negate a duty if other warnings or circumstances should have put the landowner on notice of a risk. This precedent requires property owners to be more vigilant and to consider a wider range of information when assessing risks and implementing protective measures for their guests.
Unlock the full brief for Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson