 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garofalo v. Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity9/7/2000
, 507 N.E.2d 1193, 1195 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (as part of pledge night initiation ceremony, each pledge directed to drink forty—ounce pitcher of beer "without letting the pitcher leave the pledge's lips or until the pledge vomited" followed by an eight ounce bottle of whiskey); Ballou v. Sigma Nu Gen. Fraternity, 352 S.E.2d 488, 491 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986) (pledges, clad only in underwear, expected to "chug . . . unknown mix of intoxicating liquids of undisclosed alcoholic strength" at mandatory hell—night initiation party); Haben v. Anderson, 597 N.E.2d 655, 660 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (recognizing cause of action against fraternity where consuming alcohol a requirement of membership and in violation of law prohibiting hazing); Oja v. Grand Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc., 667 N.Y.S.2d 650, 651 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (recognizing cause of action brought by estate of deceased son "who died as the result of alcohol poisoning suffered in the course of a night of hazing conducted at the defendant fraternity").
Appellants suggest these cases rest on a "special relationship" between a fraternity and its members which, they argue, gives rise to a duty to protect the initiates from harming themselves through excessive drinking. In fact the cited cases recognize an affirmative duty on the part of the fraternities and their members not to cause injury , through violation of underage drinking and hazing laws, during the initiation process. Quinn, 507 N.E.2d at 1198 (duty to conduct initiation free from unreasonable risk of harm); Ballou, 352 S.E.2d at 492 (fraternity owes "duty to its initiates not to cause them injury in the process"). The distinction is important as we consider the summary judgment record before us.
In contrast to the cases cited by appellants, the facts established in the record before us reveal no affirmative harm by the Iowa chapter of Lambda Chi Alpha, illegal or otherwise, toward Garofalo. The drinking that ultimately led to Garofalo's death was not part of any initiation ritual or ceremony. No chapter funds were used to purchase the liquor. It is true that tradition played a part in the decision by individual members to drink with underage pledges after the ceremony, and liquor was bought for that very purpose. But appellants have come forward with no proof to suggest, even impliedly, that Garofalo or any other member's consumption was coerced or required as a condition of chapter membership. To the contrary, the record yields proof that Garofalo was an experienced, if not sensible, drinker and that at least one of his peers chose not to drink at all. Thus we are unpersuaded by appellants' claim that disputed factual issues exist concerning the voluntariness of Garofalo's conduct. See Fullmer, 500 N.W.2d at 435 (party resisting motion for summary judgment must come forth with specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issue for trial).
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the appellants, we find no support for their claim that the Iowa chapter stood in a "special relation" to Matt Garofalo or affirmatively breached a duty owed to him. Neither the chapter nor its members (with the exception of defendant Chad Diehl) furnished him alcohol in violation of statute. Garofalo's consumption of alcoholic beverages was not required or compelled as a condition of membership in the chapter. In short, the ideals of fellowship espoused by the chapter are insufficient, standing alone, to create a duty on the part of the chapter to protect Garofalo from his voluntary, adult choice to drink to excess. The district court was correct in so ruling.
B. Duty of national chapter.
Appellants claim the national fraternity "had a duty to control th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|