Furek v. University of Delaware
1991 Del. LEXIS 282, 594 A.2d 506 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university has a duty to regulate and supervise foreseeable dangerous activities, such as fraternity hazing, that occur on its property. This duty arises from the university's status as a landowner with respect to its student invitees and from its voluntary assumption of a duty to protect students by promulgating anti-hazing policies.
Facts:
- In September 1979, Jeffrey V. Furek enrolled at the University of Delaware on a full football scholarship.
- In the fall of 1980, Furek pledged the Sigma Phi Epsilon (Sig Ep) fraternity, whose chapter house was located on land owned by the University.
- The University and the National Fraternity had official policies prohibiting hazing, and the University had issued multiple directives and warnings against it in the years prior, following other hazing-related injuries on campus.
- Despite these policies, hazing practices, including an annual ritual known as “Hell Night,” had continued at Sig Ep and other fraternities for at least five years, with activities like pledges marching with paddles occurring openly on campus.
- On December 4, 1980, during Sig Ep’s “Hell Night” ritual, fellow fraternity member Joseph Donchez poured a lye-based liquid oven cleaner on Furek’s back and neck.
- Furek suffered first and second-degree chemical burns from the substance, resulting in permanent scarring.
- Following the incident, Furek withdrew from the University and consequently forfeited his football scholarship.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey V. Furek sued the University of Delaware, the National Fraternity, the local Sig Ep chapter, and Joseph Donchez in the Superior Court of Delaware (a trial court).
- The action against the local Sig Ep chapter was dismissed for ineffective service of process.
- The University's pre-trial motion for summary judgment, which argued it had no duty to protect Furek, was denied by the court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the judge directed a verdict in favor of all defendants on Furek's claim for punitive damages.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Furek $30,000 in compensatory damages, apportioning liability at 93% to the University and 7% to Donchez, while finding the National Fraternity not liable.
- The University then filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial judge granted, thereby vacating the jury's finding of liability against the University.
- Furek, as appellant, appealed the granting of the JNOV, the dismissal of the local fraternity, the denial of punitive damages, and the verdict favoring the National Fraternity to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 university have a legal duty to protect a student from injuries sustained during a fraternity hazing event conducted on university-owned land, particularly when the university has knowledge of and has issued policies against such activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Walsh, Justice
Yes, a university has a legal duty to protect a student from such injuries under these circumstances. While the court rejected the historical doctrine of in loco parentis, it found a duty of care grounded in established tort principles. The primary basis for this duty is the university's status as a landowner and the student's status as an invitee, which under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344, imposes a duty to protect against the foreseeable harmful acts of third parties. The university's prior knowledge of hazing incidents made the danger to Furek foreseeable, and its ownership of the land and regulation of fraternities established sufficient control. An alternative basis for the duty is the university's voluntary assumption of a duty to protect under Restatement § 323, demonstrated by its promulgation and purported enforcement of anti-hazing policies, which constituted a service rendered for the protection of students.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for moving beyond the post-in loco parentis trend of absolving universities of responsibility for the actions of their adult students. By grounding a limited duty in established premises liability and assumed duty doctrines, the court created a new avenue for university liability. The ruling establishes that when a university has knowledge of foreseeable, dangerous student activities on its property and exerts control through regulations, it cannot completely disclaim responsibility for student safety. This precedent impacts how universities manage high-risk student organizations and forces them to take their own safety policies more seriously to avoid liability.
