Elizabeth Brown v. Delta Tau Delta
2015 Me. LEXIS 84, 118 A.3d 789, 2015 ME 75 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A national fraternity owes a duty of care based on premises liability to its local chapters' social invitees when the national organization exercises significant control over the chapter, maintains a close relationship with it, and the potential for harm, such as sexual assault at parties involving alcohol, is foreseeable.
Facts:
- The Gamma Nu chapter of the Delta Tau Delta (DTD) fraternity hosted an invite-only party at its chapter house on the University of Maine campus.
- Elizabeth Brown, a university student, was invited to the party by Joshua Clukey, a member of the Gamma Nu chapter.
- Both Brown and Clukey had been drinking alcoholic beverages before going upstairs to Clukey's private room in the fraternity house.
- Inside his room, Clukey sexually assaulted Brown and prevented her from leaving for several minutes.
- The national DTD organization provides resources to local chapters and regulates them through risk management policies, a member code of conduct, and oversight by chapter consultants and alumni advisors.
- The day after the assault, the local fraternity president told Brown that the fraternity had been concerned about Clukey's drinking problem and recent aggressive behavior.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Brown filed a civil complaint in the Maine Superior Court (trial court) against Joshua Clukey, Delta Tau Delta (DTD), and Delta Tau Delta National Housing Corporation (DTDNHC).
- Brown's complaint was amended to include claims of negligence, premises liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against DTD and DTDNHC.
- Brown settled her claims with Clukey, who was then dismissed from the lawsuit.
- The trial court granted DTD and DTDNHC's motion to dismiss the vicarious liability claim.
- The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of DTD and DTDNHC on all remaining claims, ruling that they did not owe Brown a duty of care.
- Brown (appellant) appealed the entry of summary judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, the state's highest court.
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 national fraternity that exercises significant control over its local chapters owe a duty of care, founded on premises liability, to protect a social invitee from sexual assault by a member during a party at the local chapter house?
Opinions:
Majority - Jabar, J.
Yes, a national fraternity owes a duty of care founded on premises liability to its local chapter’s social invitees. The existence of this duty is determined by a multi-factored analysis focusing on foreseeability, control, and the relationship between the parties. Here, the sexual assault was foreseeable, given the context of college students, alcohol, and fraternity parties, a fact DTD's own policies acknowledged. DTD exercised significant control over its local chapters through its constitution, bylaws, mandatory risk management guidelines, and a disciplinary structure involving national oversight. Finally, DTD had a close, integrated relationship with its local chapters, creating a clear command structure and using chapter advisors and consultants to monitor day-to-day affairs. These factors are sufficient to impose a duty on DTD to exercise reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe environment for social invitees.
Dissenting - Clifford, J.
No, a national fraternity does not owe a duty of care to a member's social invitee for a premises liability claim. DTD did not have sufficient control over the premises, as it did not own or possess the chapter house. Furthermore, no 'special relationship' existed between the national fraternity DTD and Brown, who was a social invitee of an individual member, not DTD itself. The relationship between a national fraternity and a member's guest is not analogous to that of an innkeeper and guest or a university and student. Imposing a duty based on DTD's implementation of educational programs and conduct policies would disincentivize national organizations from promoting safe behavior, for fear of assuming legal liability for the actions of individual members.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Alexander, J.
Yes, a duty of care exists, but the court's holding is too narrow. The claims for general negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress should also proceed to trial, not just the premises liability claim. Furthermore, the duty should extend to the Delta Tau Delta National Housing Corporation (DTDNHC), which owns the property. The facts suggest DTDNHC is DTD's agent for owning real estate, making it responsible for foreseeable risks on its property, similar to how a university is responsible for its dormitories. Dismissing the owner of the premises from a premises liability-related action is illogical.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the potential liability of national fraternal organizations for torts committed at local chapter houses. By grounding the duty in the national organization's control and relationship with the chapter, rather than direct ownership of the property, the court creates a new path for plaintiffs to hold national organizations accountable. This precedent may force national fraternities to either increase their direct supervision and risk management enforcement at the local level or to restructure their relationship with chapters to minimize control and thus reduce liability exposure. The ruling signals that courts may be more willing to look past corporate structures to find a duty where a national entity exerts substantial influence over local affiliates.
