Sorority Life Part 1 million

[Zuma]

I think that it Sigma wouldnt be held responsible for something that happens outside of the event that we provided. Once you leave the environment Sigma's provided, thats it, you're on your own. Think of it as the school dance policy, cant come back in so they arent responsible for your actions outside.

[Eupolis]

Originally posted by shadokat
The whole reason that national and international fraternities and sororities have risk management policies is to remove the risk of liability from the chapter/fraternity/sorority. That being said, the use of third party vendors is allowed for the reason that when you use a third party vendor, the liability lies with the vendor. For instance, you go to a bar and get served underage. That isn't the sorority or fraternity's fault...it's the vendors fault.

Please see KappaKittyCat's remarks above, distinguishing criminal liability from civil liability. She makes some very good points. While the nuances vary from state to state, criminal "fault" and civil "fault" are always treated differently. You seem to be talking about criminal responsibility. However, civil responsibility is spread much more broadly than criminal responsibility. The bartender in your sample case will be charged with serving a minor. But that will not necessarily keep the GLO from getting sued for negligence, and it's more likely than not that if the GLO and its members negligently or knowingly participated in getting people (especially minors) drunk and letting them get into dangerous situations, they'll lose. The details will depend on the specialized negligence doctrine of the state and the particular facts of the case.

I'll put it differently. Just because the GLO didn't break a law does not mean it can't be sued for negligence and lose.

[Eupolis]

Originally posted by Zuma
I think that it Sigma wouldnt be held responsible for something that happens outside of the event that we provided. Once you leave the environment Sigma's provided, thats it, you're on your own. Think of it as the school dance policy, cant come back in so they arent responsible for your actions outside.

But it's a different matter entirely if they've been allowing/encouraging people to get intoxicated inside.

[mmcat]

for what it's worth, the formal happened on May 18, according to pix on site, and the initiation happened on may 29, again according to the site. now grant you mtv takes liberal liberties in editing -- but school's just about out. phew.

[Zuma]

Originally posted by Eupolis


But it's a different matter entirely if they've been allowing/encouraging people to get intoxicated inside.

Good point. Whoops.
So it other words, I dunno.

[maggieaxid]

Zuma,
Will you tell us who you are when the show is over.
i think i know, but i'd like to wait and see if i am right.
-Maggie

[USFSDTAlum]

Originally posted by shadokat
The whole reason that national and international fraternities and sororities have risk management policies is to remove the risk of liability from the chapter/fraternity/sorority. That being said, the use of third party vendors is allowed for the reason that when you use a third party vendor, the liability lies with the vendor. For instance, you go to a bar and get served underage. That isn't the sorority or fraternity's fault...it's the vendors fault. If you drink too much at a third party vendor mixer and you drive and hurt someone, the VENDOR is responsible for having served you too much alcohol. While sisters should've taken your keys and not allowed you to drive, it's the bartenders at the facility who are serving you and seeing your condition.

Case in point...a man is at a bar, and is COMPLETELY bombed. He gets in his car and drives home and amazingly makes it. But, once home, he falls down the stairs to his basement, slamming his head off the concrete floor. He dies from swelling of the brain. So who is responsible? Well, the DA in this situation charged the BARTENDER for serving the man too much alcohol and allowing him to leave in that state. The bartender was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and while the charges were later dropped and not refiled, it shows you where the liability will lie.

I know this is completely off of the sorority life topic, and I apologize, but I think that it's important to realize that risk management is of the utmost importance, and there are reasons behind the policies we have.

You are right but not completely.
We just finished SEVERAL alcohol awareness classes offered by our nationals and our school.
Essentially this is how the law works. The blame lies with the third party vendors, as long as the sisters didn't know better. If I know that NM Becky is 18 years old and I see her present a fake ID (Manufactured or someone elses) and I don't do anything about it, and a lawyer can prove I was aware of how old she was and that she was misrepresenting her age at that point I am now liable because I was AWARE she was underage and consuming alcohol. So the blame now lies with the vendor AND me.
Hope that helps........

[shadokat]

I understand you perfectly USF. Now what if I'm 21? What if it isn't about underage drinking, but as in this case, women leaving a formal to go to another establishment? Can they blame you because someone left on their own free will? I guess that's what my confusion is. You can't tie them to the chair

[Zuma]

Originally posted by maggieaxid
Zuma,
Will you tell us who you are when the show is over.
i think i know, but i'd like to wait and see if i am right.
-Maggie

I'm not on the show. I'm an alumni, and I wasnt there for the year except at formal and picinic day. Hope that clears up any confusion.

[KappaKittyCat]

Shadokat,

In this particular case, had something happened to Jordan, Mara, Candace, or Amanda when they left the hotel (either the Westin or the one at which Sigma had reserved rooms), the question would be, "Did the sisters have a reasonable idea that they were intoxicated and therefore in danger of injury or violation due to their lowered defenses?" If so, then as sisters who had pledged loyalty and friendship to each other, they had a duty to look out for each other.

I'll use the example from the "Something of Value" presentation in which I participated in the hopes that it clarifies:

Katie Kappa is terribly intoxicated at formal, falling down and blacking out for several minutes at a time. Her big sister, the social chair, and the chapter president decide that she needs to go home (not to the hospital). They put her and her date (also drunk) in a taxi, give the cabbie money and the address and send them along their way. Her date takes her up to her room and puts her on her bed. She promptly passes out and he leaves. Nobody finds her until the next afternoon. Katie suffers severe brain damage due to alcohol poisoning. The doctors say that they could have saved her had she been brought into the hospital that night instead of the next morning.

Katie's parents sue all three ladies as individuals and the chapter as a whole (not to mention the national organization, but we need not get into that). The parents claim that these sisters had a responsibility to their daughter and that the sisters defaulted on that responsibility. Though nobody forced Katie to drink and the bartenders and security should have also noticed that she was ill (they're also named in the lawsuit), her sisters should have helped her. The family's attorneys cite the mission statement of the Fraternity, which includes "Bonds of friendship, mutual support, opportunities for self-growth, respect for intellectual development, and an understanding of and an allegiance to positive ethical principles." In cross-examining each sister, they ask, "Knowing that your sister is blacking out, seeing her stumbling around drunk, continuing to allow her to drink, putting her in a taxi with a drunk boy who could have done anything to her instead of sending her to the hospital, and not calling to check on her later that night: Do these actions constitute bonds of friendship and mutual support?" They do this with every aspect of Kappa's mission statement and ideals to establish the duty that was owed to Katie, that which her sisters failed to deliver.

The point is this. When you are a member of a sorority, you have a reasonable expectation that your sisters will help you out if you get in a jam. How many stories have we heard about sisters bailing out other sisters that they've never met, all because they took the same vows so many years ago? Katie Kappa had a reasonable expectation that her sisters would keep an eye out for her and protect her. Not that they would babysit her, not that they would police her actions, not that they would tell her that she may or may not drink, but that they would keep her safe if she couldn't keep safe herself. They failed.

As much as I'm sure that Jordan, Mara, Candace, and Amanda hurt and angered their Sigma sisters at that formal, as members of the organization (whether pledge or active) these ladies had a reasonable expectation that at least one of their sisters would have issued a word of caution. Even if the pledges in question had left anyway, the fact that someone had said something would go a long way towards indemnifying the chapter and the individual members.

Again, I have no way of knowing whether they did or they didn't. As someone said in an earlier post, "If it didn't get on TV, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned, it didn't happen." I'll give Sigma the benefit of the doubt and assume that sisters do look out for each other. I also understand that nothing happened to them, but I want us to understand that something could have. I hope that at least one person tried to prevent them from leaving. I also hope that everyone, whether sorority or fraternity, international or local, service, professional, or social, realizes what a near miss Sigma had that night. I hope we learn from it.

Respectfully,
KKC

[xo_sue]

I'm totally late to this thread but just want to say that I see a lot of down to earth sisters in that sorority and can relate to them. I admire so many of them! Such class! It is all an MTV set up and I see that. The pledges- I'm sure MTV did this..... and did that..... to set them up- (bought them drinks, dresses, limos). All I care about is, as an alum, everyone now talks about sororities and wants to join. Once they go through rush and join- they will see how it really is (not MTV sorority wise) and that is what I want. 20 years from now- I was sororities to still be around for my daughter... I do not want them to die out ... so any publicity- I'll take.

[phimugirlie01]

Did anyone else feel kinda bad for Jordon tonight? I did. Granted, I'm not her biggest fan and she can be a bit of a drama queen, but the way she was approached, along with the other pledges, was totally screwed up. And that comment Ann made? "I don't like you disrespecting my sisters.", was totally meanspirited. While it may have been deserved or true, there is a time and a place. It's wrong to just come out and say something like that right after the girl gets off the phone with her Mom. I mean, she was getting directions to her grandma's funeral! While her actions at formal were disrespectful, I don't think she deserved to be approached like that especially when she's dealing with a personal loss.

[kia123]

I sooo agree with UCLA girl. Jordan is ridiculous and the sisters had EVERY right to act they way they did. And MAra is really getting to me too, IUm sorry pledges do NOT treat sisters like that, and Hello pprincess Mara and Jordan YOU DID DO SOMETHING WRONG!

[maggieaxid]

i sorta agree with UCLAgirl, even though jordan was in midst of a personal crisis, there is no reason to be calling in the middle of a sister activity in a public room. She should have either waited until everyone left or went in her room. However, i think anne and jessie's behavior was also uncalled for. Being her "sisters" they should have asked her if she was ok, or if she needed anything when they saw she was obviously upset insted of jumping on her back again. or they just should have left her alone for the time being and deal with it when she returned from the services.

mara completely pissed me off last night. there are too many things that i could list...including her constant need to think she is the princess of the world.

and yes, candace and amanda you did try and go to a club. don't lie. it's on tape! JEEZ!

[stacydphie]

Originally posted by UCLAgirl
I can't say that I felt sympathetic towards Jordan on this show. She should have done what Dede had done and actually leave to be with her family. Calling her mother in public area showed that she wanted to be the center of attention while most other people would have called from their rooms getting some peace. Also she was totally overlooking that she left to go to a strip club. If leaving the formal was not that big of a deal, representing the house in such a way should have been something that came to her mind. But then again even her mother said that her life was always filled with some type of drama. I am sorry for being so catty but she really didn't strike my sympathetic cord today.

I would have had a lot more sympathy for her if she didn't have a completely snotty attitude during the entire pledging process.

I do agree that the Sigmas could have been a little more sympathetic to her about her grandmother, and could have been a little more tactful during that last night, but it was still a long time in coming.

And Mara......no words. Absoultely no words. I can't imagine acting like such an unbelievable snot rag during the pledge process. Or as a sister, allowing that attitude to exist.

I'm so glad those two don't make it.