Yale fraternity sued over death.
 

http://news.yahoo.com/frat-members-s...lkA1ZJUDA3N18x



Are the new members who were initiated AFTER the accident named in the lawsuit? I think they were listed in the lawsuit.

I, for one, have never heard of the "but I was a pledge" defense, and that aside, this chapter might have been a balanced man chapter in which pledges don't really exist.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a judge or jury who cares about the difference between a pledge and an active. They were all engaged in a common purpose--getting beer to the tailgate party or consuming the beer. That said, this was a pretty ambitious tactic by the plaintiff, but I can see what he's doing and legally, I think it's sound.

Of course, I know nothing about Massachusetts law, so who knows?

You are missing the point. Most of the current members were NOT pledges or active members at the time of the accident. Some of them were probably still in high school.

Uhhhh...welcome to GC, tuco99.

As for the larger topic, tuco99 is asking whether the current members will suffer due to the mistakes of the past. Current chapter members usually suffer if NHQ and the school punish the chapter (chapter suspension, removing charter, prohibiting intake, prohibiting social events, etc.) and not only individual members.

As for what Kevin said, the "I was just a pledge" response has been used for generations when chapters get caught. The pledges at most chapters do not challenge the actives and do not report issues. There are, however, a few chapters notorious for pledges who keep the actives in check. I think this was more common for certain chapters in the 1970s-1980s (the former pledges (most of whom are now members of the GLO) still boast about it). I know of some "put the actives in their place" pledges in the 1990s but being a "put the actives in their place" pledge in the 1990s-2010s is more likely to result in some repercussions including but not limited to never becoming a member.

Reading is fundamental.

This is obviously saying that the 86 members who were members at the time of the accident were sued personally. Those members who were not members then, who as you say were in high school at the time, I doubt very much were sued.

LOL. I assumed tuco99 knows that people who had nothing to do with this would not be sued. I thought tuco99 was asking about the future implications of it all. I just re-read the OP and see that tuco99 thought those people could be named in the lawsuit.

Then why do you "doubt" they were sued?

Tuco99, Kevin is loath to brag on his own accomplishments, but he is a successful attorney who is always willing to share general information about the law. He is doing just that, with the disclaimer that he is not knowledgeable about Connecticut law (I know he said Massachusetts, but meant Connecticut).

Because he isn't involved with the case, and thus doesn't know all the details. It's entirely possible to name somebody in a lawsuit that isn't legally liable, which might be the case here.

I thought that was a very interesting comment to be made. The question I have though, is can individual members of a voluntary organization generally be found liable for the actions of one person, even if that one person was acting as an agent of the organization as a whole?

That would make sense if the "chapter" is named in the lawsuit (similar to when lawsuits against (inter)national bodies impact chapters).

That would probably not be the case if individual members (the 86 past and current at the time of the incident) are named in the lawsuit.

Kevin is 100% right.

If they weren't members at the time, then they didn't owe the plaintiff a duty, and couldn't breach that duty, and couldn't be sued.

It would be a relatively simple matter to get those defendants dismissed from the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Here's what is happening here:

The fraternity chapter is not incorporated. It does not have a legal status which allows it to be sued. To sue the organization, you have to sue the members.

From the plaintiff's attorney perspective, if he sues each individual member, each homeowner's insurance policy may be brought into the suit. Since liability insurance on a homeowner's policy is often around the value of the house, that means there may be a whole lot of $200,000+ insurance policies stacked up in this case. That's a very deep set of pockets. The plaintiff's attorney is a clever boy/girl.

I wonder if the defendants can argue that they are covered by the incorporation of the national organization -- ie. they are just agents of the national organization which is incorporated and don't have a separate legal status?

Under some theories, yes. The simplest theory to get to the whole group would be if the whole group of defendants had an agreement/policy to bring beer to the tailgate. Then the individual member is acting as an agent of the whole group and they are liable for his actions.

Thank you. We didn't really talk about joint liability except in very very general term in Torts.

Law students... :)

Hey, at least I know what I don't know and ask for clarification. Plus I was too lazy to research the relevant law.