W2d 647 654 Iowa 2000 national fraternity had no duty to protect pledge from

W2d 647 654 iowa 2000 national fraternity had no duty

This preview shows page 14 - 16 out of 45 pages.

, 616 N.W.2d 647, 654 (Iowa 2000) (national fraternity had no duty to protect pledge from his excessive drinking that occurred after a big brother/little brother ceremony since the national fraternity neither furnished the alcohol nor forced him to consume any alcohol); Walker v. Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity , 96-2345, pp. 8-9 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/29/97); 706 So. 2d 525, 529-30 (national fraternity had no duty to prevent local chapter’s hazing of pledge by physical abuse since the national fraternity was unable to control the day-to-day actions of the local chapter, which was located several states away from the national fraternity); Millard v. Osborne , 611 A.2d 715, 719-20 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (national fraternity had no duty to control the actions of its local chapter’s members, who furnished alcohol at the fraternity house to a student who was killed shortly thereafter in a motorcycle accident). ¶ 40 We also acknowledge, however, that some courts have held that a national fraternity may be liable for the actions of its local chapters. See Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation , 51 A.3d 367, 389 (Conn. 2012) (the extent of the national fraternity’s control over its local chapter’s actions raised a question of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment); Brown v. Delta Tau Delta , 2015 ME 75, ¶ 10, 118 A.3d 789, 792 (national fraternity owed a duty based on a - 14 -
theory of premises liability to student who was sexually assaulted during fraternity party); Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity , 31,805, p. 16 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/7/99); 738 So. 2d 1105, 1118-19 (national fraternity was liable to a pledge for the actions of its local chapter because it had voluntarily assumed a duty to prevent hazing but had acted negligently in performing its duty). ¶ 41 Notwithstanding the varied nuances of other jurisdictions’ determinations of a national fraternity’s liability for the actions of a local chapter, Illinois jurisprudence regarding an affirmative duty is clear. We find no basis to impose an affirmative duty upon the Nationals absent a special relationship. Moreover, in Iseberg , we stated that this court has never recognized an affirmative duty to protect or control based upon consideration of the traditional four duty factors in the absence of a special relationship. Iseberg , 227 Ill. 2d at 98. ¶ 42 Since we conclude that the Nationals did not owe a duty to the pledges, plaintiff cannot establish a claim for negligence against them. See Bell v. Hutsell , 2011 IL 110724, ¶ 11 (unless a duty is owed, there can be no recovery in tort for negligence). We affirm the appellate court’s dismissal of counts I and II of the complaint. ¶ 43 Counts III through VIII—The NIU Chapter, Its Officers and Pledge Board Members, and Active Members ¶ 44 We next turn to counts III through VIII of plaintiff’s complaint, which name the NIU Chapter, its officers and pledge board members, and its active members.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture