Ex Parte Barran
730 So. 2d 203 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adult plaintiff who has knowledge of the risks associated with fraternity hazing and voluntarily continues to participate in those activities has assumed the risk of injury and is barred from recovering on a claim of negligence.
Facts:
- In September 1993, Jason Jones, a student at Auburn University, chose to become a pledge of the Kappa Alpha Order (KA) fraternity.
- Within two days of pledging, Jones began experiencing hazing activities which continued for the next academic year.
- The hazing included being paddled, kicked, forced to eat disgusting mixtures, and being made to jump into a ditch filled with water, urine, feces, and vomit.
- Jones was aware that between 20% and 40% of the members of his pledge class had chosen to withdraw from the pledge program.
- Despite the ongoing hazing and knowing he could leave, Jones continued to participate in the activities in the hope of becoming a full member of KA.
- Jones's participation as a pledge ended only when Auburn University suspended him for poor academic performance.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Jones sued Kappa Alpha Order and several members in an Alabama trial court for, among other things, negligent hazing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the negligence claims, holding that Jones had assumed the risk of his injuries.
- Jones, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment as to the local chapter and its members, finding a jury question existed as to whether Jones's participation was truly voluntary.
- The local chapter and its members, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari for review by the Supreme Court of Alabama, 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 fraternity pledge's voluntary participation in hazing activities, with knowledge of the associated risks and the ability to withdraw, constitute assumption of the risk as a matter of law, thereby barring a negligence claim against the fraternity and its members?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice See
Yes. A fraternity pledge's voluntary participation in hazing activities constitutes assumption of the risk, barring a negligence claim. The affirmative defense of assumption of the risk requires two elements: (1) the plaintiff's knowledge and appreciation of the risk, and (2) the plaintiff's voluntary exposure to that risk. The court found both elements were met as a matter of law. Jones knew of and appreciated the risks, as the hazing began almost immediately and continued for a full year. He also voluntarily exposed himself to those risks; the court rejected the argument that peer pressure created a coercive environment, reasoning that Jones was a legal adult, was aware that many of his peers had successfully withdrawn, and admitted in his own deposition that he could have quit at any time. Because reasonable people could only conclude that Jones knew the risks and freely chose to face them, his negligence claim is barred.
Dissenting - Justice Shores
No. The majority's holding should not bar the negligence claim. The dissent focused on public policy, condemning the hazing practices as degrading, disgusting, and health-threatening. It argued that the state's criminal anti-hazing statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 16-1-23, was enacted precisely to address and prevent such exploitative behavior. By allowing the assumption of the risk defense to bar the claim, the majority's decision effectively condones a practice the legislature sought to prohibit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strength of the assumption of the risk defense against negligence claims arising from hazing in voluntary social organizations. The court explicitly rejects the idea that peer pressure can legally negate the voluntariness of an adult's decision to participate in such activities. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for college students who are injured during hazing to succeed on negligence claims, placing a heavy burden of personal responsibility on the pledges themselves, even where the hazing conduct is criminal. The ruling signals that courts may be hesitant to carve out exceptions to traditional tort defenses to accommodate the unique social dynamics of university life.
Unlock the full brief for Ex Parte Barran