100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
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.