Yost v. Wabash College
976 N.E.2d 724 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana law, a landlord or a national parent organization that does not exercise direct control over a local fraternity chapter's premises or daily activities owes no duty of care to protect a pledge from injuries sustained during fraternity activities. However, the local chapter itself, by virtue of its direct supervision and control over pledges and their activities, may be found to have assumed a duty of care and can be held liable for its breach.
Facts:
- Brian Yost, an 18-year-old freshman at Wabash College, was a pledge at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.
- The local Phi Kappa Psi chapter leased its fraternity house from Wabash College and was in full control of the premises.
- Yost resided in the fraternity house with other members and pledges.
- In September 2007, Yost and his fellow pledges engaged in a fraternity tradition called "creeking," which involved attempting to throw an active member into a creek.
- Shortly after, active members of the fraternity, including Yost's designated "Pledge Father," attempted to forcibly place Yost in a shower.
- This act of placing someone in a shower resembled another one of the local fraternity's traditions.
- During this incident, Yost sustained personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Yost filed a personal injury lawsuit in an Indiana trial court against Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity-Indiana Gamma Chapter (the local fraternity), Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc. (the national fraternity), and a student member.
- The college and the two fraternity defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the college and both fraternity organizations.
- Yost, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment rulings to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the summary judgment grants for all three defendants.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Indiana negligence law, does a duty of care to protect a fraternity pledge from injuries sustained during fraternity activities extend to (1) a college that acts as a landlord but cedes control of the premises to the local chapter, (2) a national fraternity organization that provides aspirational guidance but does not control daily operations, or (3) the local fraternity chapter that directly supervises its members and pledge activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, Chief Justice
No as to Wabash College and the national fraternity; Yes as to the local fraternity. A duty of care does not extend to the college or national organization because they lacked control, but a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the local chapter assumed such a duty. Reasoning for Wabash College: The college's liability was analyzed under three theories. First, as a landlord, Wabash owed no duty because it had given the local fraternity (the tenant) full possession and control of the premises, which is the dispositive factor in premises liability. Second, Wabash did not assume a duty of care through its anti-hazing policies because these policies were general in nature and did not constitute a specific undertaking to control student conduct or protect Yost. Third, Wabash was not vicariously liable because no agency relationship existed; the local fraternity did not act on the college's behalf. Reasoning for the National Fraternity: Similarly, the national fraternity owed no general duty because its relationship with individual student members was too remote and tenuous. Public policy favors encouraging national organizations to promote safety without imposing liability for events they don't directly control. The national fraternity also did not assume a duty, as its anti-hazing materials were educational and aspirational, not a specific undertaking of control. Finally, no agency relationship existed to support vicarious liability. Reasoning for the Local Fraternity: Summary judgment was improper for the local fraternity. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether it assumed a duty of care. Yost was a pledge living in the house, subject to the authority of members and participating in fraternity traditions. A jury could find the local fraternity undertook supervisory services for its pledges, that Yost relied on this supervision, and that the fraternity's failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Rucker, J.
I concur in the judgment regarding the national and local fraternities but dissent as to Wabash College. Reasoning: The majority incorrectly concluded that Wabash, as landlord, was relieved of its duty of care. As the party moving for summary judgment, Wabash had the burden to prove it gave "full control and possession" of the property to the local fraternity. Wabash failed to carry this burden because it did not submit the lease agreement or any other evidence detailing the terms of control. Simply stating that a lease existed is insufficient to establish that the landlord's duty as a landowner was extinguished. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Wabash College was improper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of liability for colleges and national Greek organizations in cases of fraternity-related injuries. By emphasizing the necessity of direct operational control, the court insulates these entities from liability where their role is limited to that of a landlord or a provider of aspirational guidance. This creates a clear distinction, placing primary legal responsibility on the local chapters that directly manage the premises and supervise pledge activities. The ruling protects broader anti-hazing and educational efforts by ensuring that implementing such policies does not automatically create an 'assumed duty' that could perversely discourage such positive interventions.
Unlock the full brief for Yost v. Wabash College