Judge Brann of Federal Middle District Refuses to Create New Duty in Fraternity Hazing Cases

In the case of Jean v. Bucknell University, No. 4:20-CV-01722 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2021 Brann, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss in a college fraternity hazing personal injury case.

Judge Brann ruled that allegations of off-campus fraternity hazing, unknown to and unsupported by the Defendant university did not justify the creation of a new tort duty to discover and halt such conduct.

As part of his ruling, the court noted that the creation of a duty to ferret out and prevent hazing would effectively require a prohibition of all student group gatherings without direct university supervision.

The court otherwise noted that institutions of higher learning do not owe any in loco parentis duty to its students.

In the end, the court found that hazing incidents involving separate, unaffiliated organizations are too attenuated to constitute facilitation or recklessness allegations.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Victor Svistunov on unsplash.com.

Federal Judge Denies Motion For Summary Judgment Filed by Carrier on Coverage Issues Related to Alleged Fraternity Hazing Death

In the case of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Dibileo, No. 3:19-CV-01003 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2021 Brann, J.), the court denied a carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its Declaratory Judgment Action regarding issues of coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy arising out of alleged actions by fraternity students in an alleged hazing death.   

The court found that the action filed by the decedent’s parents stated a claim for negligence.  The court found that policy provisions in the homeowner’s policy excluding coverage for criminal and intentional acts did not serve to insulate the carrier from the negligent claims asserted by the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 17, 2021). 

Federal Middle District Court Addresses Issues of Alleged Hazing and the Applicablity of an Arbitration Agreement on Such Allegations

In the case of Jean v. Bucknell University, No. 4:20-CV-01722 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 2021 Brann, J.), the court granted Bucknell University’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s Complaint arising out of allegations that the Plaintiff was hazed during an event on campus.   

The Plaintiff alleges that, after the alleged hazing events, Bucknell University attempted to keep word as to what happened within the campus walls in an effort to avoid the publicity associated with taking adverse or disciplinary action against the students involved or the fraternity involved.   

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted three claims against Bucknell, including claims for hazing, negligence, and negligence per se.   

Bucknell University filed a Motion to Dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).   

Judge Matthew W. Brann noted that, under the Twombly/Iqbal analysis, in order to survive a Motion to Dismiss, “a Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”   See Op. at 7. 

The court went on to note that “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”   Id.   

After reviewing the case before it, the court concluded that Bucknell did not owe a duty to the Plaintiff under the circumstances presented.   The court rejected the Plaintiff’s request that the court articulate a new duty encompassing Bucknell’s conduct in this case.   It appeared to the court that the duty that the Plaintiff’s sought to have imposed was to require colleges to regulate and control fraternities that the college specifically knows are likely to engage in hazing of pledges.   The court rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the creation of such a duty.   

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s request that a duty be imposed upon the university under various sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.   

The court additionally dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims for hazing and negligence per se, both of which claims were predicated upon Bucknell University’s alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing statute.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Owen Coleman of the Law Offices of Harry Coleman in Carbondale, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

___________   

In the case of Jean v. Bucknell University, No. 4:20-CV-01722 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 2021 Brann, J.), Judge Matthew W. Brann, issued a separate decision in this case addressing various Motions to Compel Arbitration in a case involving hazing allegations.  

The court noted that every student who receives a bid to join the fraternity must a complete a new member registration form on the fraternity’s website.  Under that document, the new member consented to mandatory arbitration of any legal claims or disputes between the member and the fraternity.   

In this decision, the court addressed various issues on whether the mandatory arbitration provisions should be imposed upon the parties given that a separate personal injury litigation was also pending.   

In a 50 page Opinion, the court declined to sever any unconscionable terms of the arbitration agreement and instead ruled that the agreement should be allowed to stand.   In the end, however, the court denied the various Motions to Compel Arbitration.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Owen Coleman of the Law Offices of Harry Coleman in Carbondale, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.   

Judge Brann of Federal Middle District Issues Opinion Addressing Motions to Dismiss and/or Stay in College Hazing Case

In the case of Piazza v. Young, No. 4:19-cv-00128 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019 Brann, J.), the court addressed various Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Stay in a civil lawsuit arising out of the fatal injuries sustained by a student at Penn State allegedly as a result of hazing activities in a fraternity.  The court granted the motions in part and denied the motions in part.  

Of note, with respect to those fraternity brothers Defendants who were under the age of 21, the court allowed the claims of the Plaintiff to proceed against those underaged Defendants under the Plaintiff’s theory of recovery to hold the Defendants liable for breaching an alleged protective duty that the Defendants, as fraternity members, allegedly owed to the Plaintiff’s son, a fraternity pledge. 

Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

In this regard, Judge Brann refused to apply the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1994) in as an expansive manner as requested by those moving Defendants who were under the age of 21.   Under the Kapres case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court generally ruled that individuals under the age of 21 cannot be held liable under the social host doctrine to a guest or third party injured on the premises relative to the service of  alcohol. 

The court in this Piazza case refused to read the Kapres case as immunizing the fraternity Defendants in this case from alleged liability for their otherwise allegedly wrongful conduct that involved the provision of alcohol.   See Op. at 16-18.  The court also noted that an expansive reading of the Kapres decision in the context of this case would not serve to further the social utility of the Pennsylvania statutes against hazing activities.

However, the court did otherwise note that the Plaintiff’s separate claim for negligence per se relative to the service of alcohol asserted against the fraternity Defendants who were under the age of 21 should be dismissed under the rationale of the Kapres case.  

This Opinion is also notable for the court’s review of the law pertaining to allegations of breach and causation, hazing allegations, allegations of civil conspiracy and claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

The court ruled that those defendants who acted to aid plaintiff after his accident can be liable under Restatement §§323, 324A for negligently failing to seek professional medical help.  However, the court found that other defendants who did not act to aid the Plaintiff could not be found to be liable for failing to render any aid as there is no cognizable duty under these facts to rescue in the first place.

Judge Brann also found that a negligence per se claim based upon an alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing statute is a viable claim. 

The Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed under the rationale that an alleged attempted cover up of the incident did not amount to an intent to inflict emotional distress on anyone.

The court additionally denied the Motion to Dismiss the claims of punitive damages asserted in this matter.   The court noted that it has routinely declined to dismiss punitive damages demands at the Motion to Dismiss stage of the case and prior to discovery.  

Judge Brann also addressed separate Motions to Stay filed by several Defendants who have been criminally charged arising out of the same incident.  

On this issue, the court reviewed the six (6) factors required under the case of Barker v. Kane, 49 F.Supp. 3^rd 521, 525-26 (M.D. Pa. 2016) and granted this in part and denied it in part.   Essentially, the court denied the request to stay the matter but crafted the remedy that entitles certain Defendants to exercise their right against self-incrimination.   The court noted that certain Defendants would not be required to  answer any pleadings or discovery or participate in any depositions that would implicate their Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination by engaging in such pleadings and discovery.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Brann may click this LINK.