Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceliabilitysummary judgmentcorporationduty of carevicarious liability
negligenceliabilitysummary judgmentduty of carevicarious liability

Related Cases

Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks & Recreation, 146 Ohio St.3d 271, 55 N.E.3d 1073, 2016-Ohio-1565
View Case »
Maussner v. Atlantic City Country Club, Inc., 299 N.J.Super. 535, 691 A.2d 826, 65 USLW 2677
View Case »
McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 2016 A.M.C. 1579, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,816, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3443, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3139
View Case »
Hamric v. Wilderness Expeditions, Inc., 6 F.4th 1108, 110 Fed.R.Serv.3d 130
View Case »
Banks v. Hyatt Corp., 722 F.2d 214
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brown v. Delta Tau Delta, 118 A.3d 789, 2015 ME 75

Facts

On September 17, 2010, Brown, a student at the University of Maine, attended a party at the Gamma Nu chapter of DTD, where she was invited by a fraternity member. After consuming alcohol, she went to the member's room, where he sexually assaulted her. The fraternity president later acknowledged concerns about the member's behavior, and the chapter expelled him following the incident. Brown subsequently filed a civil complaint against the fraternity and its national housing corporation, alleging negligence and premises liability.

On September 17, 2010, Gamma Nu hosted a party at its DTD fraternity house that was restricted to invited guests only. Brown, a UMO student, was invited to the party by Joshua Clukey, a member of Gamma Nu. Brown arrived at the fraternity house between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. and found Clukey. Brown and Clukey, who had both been drinking alcoholic beverages, went upstairs to Clukey's room, past a fraternity member whose function was to limit access to the upper floors to residents and their guests. Inside his room, Clukey sexually assaulted Brown and prevented her from leaving the room for several minutes.

Issue

Did Delta Tau Delta owe a duty of care to Elizabeth Brown as a social invitee at the fraternity house, and can it be held liable for the actions of its member?

Did Delta Tau Delta owe a duty of care to Elizabeth Brown as a social invitee at the fraternity house, and can it be held liable for the actions of its member?

Rule

A national fraternity may owe a duty of care to its local chapter's social invitees based on premises liability, particularly when it has control over the local chapter and is aware of potential risks associated with events held at its premises.

A national fraternity may owe a duty of care to its local chapter's social invitees based on premises liability, particularly when it has control over the local chapter and is aware of potential risks associated with events held at its premises.

Analysis

The court determined that DTD had a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its local chapter's social invitees, as it had significant control over the chapter and was aware of the potential for misconduct, including sexual assault, during events where alcohol was consumed. The court emphasized the foreseeability of such incidents occurring in a fraternity setting and the fraternity's responsibility to provide a safe environment for invitees.

The court determined that DTD had a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its local chapter's social invitees, as it had significant control over the chapter and was aware of the potential for misconduct, including sexual assault, during events where alcohol was consumed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment on the vicarious liability claims against DTD and DTDNHC but vacated the summary judgment regarding the premises liability claim against DTD, allowing that claim to proceed.

The court affirmed the summary judgment on the vicarious liability claims against DTD and DTDNHC but vacated the summary judgment regarding the premises liability claim against DTD, allowing that claim to proceed.

Who won?

Delta Tau Delta prevailed on the vicarious liability claims and the remaining negligence claims, as the court found no special relationship existed that would impose a general duty of care.

Delta Tau Delta prevailed on the vicarious liability claims and the remaining negligence claims, as the court found no special relationship existed that would impose a general duty of care.

You must be