In Inside Courts, retired judge Tom Hodson explains the complexities of the law and legal cases, helping you understand what’s at stake — and how it affects you.
Ohio University is not responsible for the 2018 death of 18-year-old freshman Collin Wiant as part of an off-campus hazing incident with Sigma Pi fraternity, according to Judge Lisa Sadler of the Ohio Court of Claims.
This decision, without a trial, was shocking to some. Let me break down the judge’s ruling for you so that you can better understand the case’s ramifications.
In a motion for summary judgment (deciding the case without a trial), Judge Sadler found that Ohio University had no liability for the asphyxiation death from nitrous oxide of Wiant, a pledge to the Sigma Pi fraternity, in an off-campus house populated by several fraternity members in December 2018.
Judge Sadler filed a 40-page opinion ruling in the university’s favor and against Wiant’s parents and his estate.
Although the opinion currently stands as the law in the case, the Wiants are expected to appeal to the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County. Eventually, this case may wind its way to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Rex Elliott, the attorney representing Wiant’s family, told WBNS-TV in Columbus that the judge’s ruling was “shocking” and that he was “stunned” by the decision.
“The only party not taking responsibility for Collin’s death is Ohio University,” he said. He noted that individual fraternity members and the national Sigma Pi fraternity took responsibility but not the university.
Let’s look at the various aspects of the case.
Plaintiff’s claims
The plaintiffs, Collin Wiant’s parents and his estate, brought an action against Ohio University in the Court of Claims, where one brings an action against the state. The family claimed that Ohio University was negligent in not preventing Collin’s death and that the university violated Ohio Revised Code 2307.44, the Ohio civil hazing statute.
The plaintiffs asked for money damages for Collin before his death and for the family afterward.
Plaintiffs claimed that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Collin’s death was foreseeable and therefore there was a material dispute of fact that should be resolved by a trial.
Defendant’s claims
Ohio University argued it had no duty to supervise Collin’s off campus activities or to protect Collin from actions of third parties. The university also claimed Collin voluntarily assumed the risk of using nitrous oxide.
Additionally, the university also asserted that it actively enforces the civil hazing policies required by state law.
The university also claimed that there was no proof that Sigma Pi was hazing Collin at the time of his death.
Findings of the court
The Court traced university policies regarding hazing back to 2014, when the university formed an Anti-hazing Policy Task Force.
In 2017 the university’s anti-hazing policy was updated and included holding students accountable for hazing on or off campus. University officials held anti-hazing seminars and workshops for students and staff in March 2017, September 2017 and in 2018.
There were hazing complaints against Sigma Pi filed with the university in September 2013, February 2014 and March 2014. The complaints were either too vague and too anonymous to follow-up or the complainant withdrew the complaint.
However, in March 2014, Sigma Pi accepted responsibility for a hazing incident and the fraternity was put on probation by the university until May 3, 2015. There were no reported violations of the probation.
There was one report of possible hazing in September 2016, but an investigation did not conclude that hazing had occurred.
No complaints regarding hazing by Sigma Pi were noted by the university for the remainder of 2016, 2017, or 2018.
The university expelled the fraternity from campus after Wiant’s death in December 2018.
Rulings
Judge Sadler ruled against the Wiants and in favor of the university on both the negligence claim and the claim of violating Ohio Revised Code 2307.44. Let’s look at some of the court’s reasoning.
Negligence
To prevail on a negligence claim the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty and that breach was the proximate cause of injuries.
The court found that the University did not have a duty to protect Collin while he was off campus participating in off-campus personal activities.
“Because Collin was not on campus or otherwise located on premises under Defendant’s control or possession, Defendant had no duty to shield him from the harmful off-campus activity of others…Furthermore, this Court can find no Ohio authority supporting the conclusion that a university acts in loco parentis with respect to its students or otherwise has a legal obligation to regulate or supervise the private lives of its students or their associations, Judge Sadler wrote.
She concluded: “Therefore, this Court will not deviate from the well-settled law which has long “characterized the student-university relationship in business terms” and declined ‘to impose a duty in negligence on a higher education institution with regard to its students which reaches beyond university activities or premises under its possession and control’.”
In this case, the court additionally determined that the actions of Collin and his death were not foreseeable by the university, so the university had no “duty” to prevent them.
The court also found that even if there was a duty on the part of the university to protect Collin from hazing off campus, it was not breached and therefore, the second element of the negligence claim also failed.
Compliance with ORC 2307.44
Judge Sadler admitted that this is the first time that a court has interpreted ORC. 2307.44. So, this part of the decision will surely be appealed to test Judge Sadler’s reasoning.
The judge noted the part of the statute that needed interpretation. “Pursuant to R.C. 2307.44, ‘[a]ny person who is subjected to hazing … may commence a civil action for injury or damages, including mental and physical pain and suffering, that resulted from the hazing.’ In addition to those participating in the hazing, a university may be liable for the injuries sustained during hazing incidents involving its students and its employees who either ‘knew or reasonably should have known of the hazing and who did not make reasonable attempts to prevent it ….’ R.C. 2307.44. However, a university may avoid liability in a civil hazing action through active enforcement of an anti-hazing policy.”
The university argued that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it was actively enforcing an anti-hazing policy at the time of Collin’s death in fall 2018.
The university also argued that it cannot be proven that any Ohio University employee “knew or reasonably should have known that Collin was being hazed or that Collin was subjected to hazing at the time of his death.”
The plaintiffs claim that the university was not actively enforcing its anti-hazing policy prior to Collin’s death. The plaintiffs assert that the university should have more rigorously addressed the allegations against Sigma Pi and should have concluded that hazing was still going on in fall 2018.
The court found that the university had an anti-hazing policy in place in the fall 2018 and that it was being actively enforced by “by informing students about its policy against hazing, providing information about the dangers of hazing, and offering access to resources for students to report hazing or protect themselves from hazing.”
It is undisputed that the president of Sigma Pi attended a special training session against hazing in fall 2018.
The court found that even though several individuals knew that Collin was being hazed that fall, no one notified the university or filed any complaint. Therefore, the university had no knowledge of the hazing.
The court then addressed whether the university have had “constructive knowledge” that hazing was happening, given the history of Sigma Pi.
Judge Sadler found that “… merely possessing general knowledge of an organization’s potential to haze or its prior isolated instances of hazing is not sufficient evidence to attribute constructive knowledge of hazing to university staff as a matter of law.”
Given past reports of hazing and the university’s history with Sigma Pi, the court found that it “cannot reasonably conclude that any OU employee would reasonably suspect Sigma Pi of hazing in Fall 2018 given the significant time between the reports, the anonymous and vague nature of many of the reports, and the elusive nature of the various reporters’ identities or inconsistency across the accounts reported. “
There were no reports of hazing in the fall of 2018, so there was nothing for the university to investigate or discipline, according to the judge.
Conclusion
In his interview with WBNS-TV, the Wiants’ attorney complained not only about the decision but also about Ohio University.
“It’s a joke. For five years they had complaints indicating there was hazing going on in this particular chapter,” Elliott said. “OU simply had a hazing policy, told people to follow it, and then they looked the other way. That’s exactly what happened.”
Ohio University also issued a statement to WBNS-TV:
“We are pleased that the judge has granted the University’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Ohio University had no liability in the tragic death of Collin Wiant. Ohio University has always and will continue to educate our students and ensure their success throughout their time at OHIO.”
It will be fascinating to see how this case unfolds in the 10th District Court of Appeals and whether Judge Sadler’s reasoning and interpretation of the law will prevail.
