Chi Psi Colorado Proceeds

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

His death is as much her fault as it is the fraternity's.

Yeah i'm gonna agree with LaneSig. How is any of that her fault?

[valkyrie]

This guy was a grown adult who participated in hazing. Maybe if she'd raised him better he would've had more sense. That's being blunt and an exaggeration of what I'm really saying here, but if she's trying to blame the fraternity, I don't think the fraternity would be wrong to turn around and try to put some of the blame on her. Why should she be entitled to recover money because her adult son did something stupid?

My opinion would be different if there were NEVER any acts of hazing that happened before this and he had no idea what was coming; or if something was slipped into his drink and he was, against his free will, unaware of what was happening; or if he was physically forced to do everything he did and could not possibly escape at any time. Is any of that the case here? All I've heard is that he was blindfolded and taken into the woods -- are you telling me that a healthy adult male couldn't have put the smackdown on anybody trying to blindfold him if he really didn't want to participate?

Yes, this is a tragedy and things like this should never happen again. Yes, these guys were assholes and they should've done something to help him when he was unconscious. However, parents blaming the fraternities is ridiculous. I'm sure my position is unpopular, but holy hell people should take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others for their actions.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

This guy was a grown adult who participated in hazing. Maybe if she'd raised him better he would've had more sense. That's being blunt and an exaggeration of what I'm really saying here, but if she's trying to blame the fraternity, I don't think the fraternity would be wrong to turn around and try to put some of the blame on her. Why should she be entitled to recover money because her adult son did something stupid?

My opinion would be different if there were NEVER any acts of hazing that happened before this and he had no idea what was coming; or if something was slipped into his drink and he was, against his free will, unaware of what was happening; or if he was physically forced to do everything he did and could not possibly escape at any time. Is any of that the case here? All I've heard is that he was blindfolded and taken into the woods -- are you telling me that a healthy adult male couldn't have put the smackdown on anybody trying to blindfold him if he really didn't want to participate?

Yes, this is a tragedy and things like this should never happen again. Yes, these guys were assholes and they should've done something to help him when he was unconscious. However, parents blaming the fraternities is ridiculous. I'm sure my position is unpopular, but holy hell people should take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others for their actions.

Wow. This is quite a statement.

Was this Young Man an Adult. Yes, but by law because of age, not His Mothers teachings. Being of state legal age does not make him a true adult nor does it excuse the members of the GLO from what happened does it?

Yes, you are correct, people should take the blame for their actions from both sides of the coin.

Is it a tragidy, hell yes it is. So, whose fault is it.

The mother who sent her son off to college or the members of the GLO that he joined to not be more responsible to protect him from harms way.

Adults, that is a very good question. Legal or maturity is the call it seems here.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

This guy was a grown adult who participated in hazing. Maybe if she'd raised him better he would've had more sense. That's being blunt and an exaggeration of what I'm really saying here, but if she's trying to blame the fraternity, I don't think the fraternity would be wrong to turn around and try to put some of the blame on her. Why should she be entitled to recover money because her adult son did something stupid?

My opinion would be different if there were NEVER any acts of hazing that happened before this and he had no idea what was coming; or if something was slipped into his drink and he was, against his free will, unaware of what was happening; or if he was physically forced to do everything he did and could not possibly escape at any time. Is any of that the case here? All I've heard is that he was blindfolded and taken into the woods -- are you telling me that a healthy adult male couldn't have put the smackdown on anybody trying to blindfold him if he really didn't want to participate?

Yes, this is a tragedy and things like this should never happen again. Yes, these guys were assholes and they should've done something to help him when he was unconscious. However, parents blaming the fraternities is ridiculous. I'm sure my position is unpopular, but holy hell people should take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others for their actions.

From my point of view, he was obviously trying to be a normal pledge and did what the guys wanted him to do. Shit, I was naive as hell when I was a freshman in college. I did just about everything that they told me to do during pledgeship. I definitely knew my limits.......but I definitely wanted to participate in everything I could. I think when you are a pledge you absolutely have the notion that everything you are going through was endured by everyone else that went through before you. In a way, that makes pledgeship easier. I really don't think you can always blame parental upbringing when people our age make bad decisions (in some cases, sure you can. Absolutely)...i'll be the first to admit that. I was raised in a pretty strict household and was taught plenty about personal responsibility, accountability, respect, and all of that good stuff.............and I do dumb shit all of the time. Its college.

I do agree with you though on some points. I think blaming the fraternity from an organizational standpoint is pretty lame. If you want to go after individuals, with a valid reason, I can see that being ok.

[Kevin]

The fraternity has the insurance policy, tons of assets, etc. You're more likely to get a big award from a jury against an organization than against an individual. Even though insurance coverage won't be discussed, there's not a juror in the world who is not at least going to let that run through his/her mind.

And then, joint and several liability should be a concept most in this thread are familiar with.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The fraternity has the insurance policy.

Joint and several liability folks.

Understand. But, doesn't make it right.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by macallan25

From my point of view, he was obviously trying to be a normal pledge and did what the guys wanted him to do. Shit, I was naive as hell when I was a freshman in college. I did just about everything that they told me to do during pledgeship. I definitely knew my limits.......but I definitely wanted to participate in everything I could. I think when you are a pledge you absolutely have the notion that everything you are going through was endured by everyone else that went through before you. In a way, that makes pledgeship easier. I really don't think you can always blame parental upbringing when people our age make bad decisions (in some cases, sure you can. Absolutely)...i'll be the first to admit that. I was raised in a pretty strict household and was taught plenty about personal responsibility, accountability, respect, and all of that good stuff.............and I do dumb shit all of the time. Its college.

I do agree with you though on some points. I think blaming the fraternity from an organizational standpoint is pretty lame. If you want to go after individuals, with a valid reason, I can see that being ok.

I have to agree with everything that macallan is saying (Don't die of shock, macallan. ). I am also getting real tired of organizations getting blamed when an individual/individuals do stupid stuff. There is absolutely no way that IHQs or chapter advisors can keep an eye on every single minute detail of what the members are doing. This isn't a situation like what was happening with the Catholic Diocese ("Oh, this member at State U is hazing pledges. Let's send him to University of Duh and maybe he'll stop hazing."). I do think that the individuals need to held responsible.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by macallan25

I was raised in a pretty strict household and was taught plenty about personal responsibility, accountability, respect, and all of that good stuff.............and I do dumb shit all of the time. Its college.

I'm betting you were also taught that gentlemen drink responsibly and things of that nature. i.e, you didn't come to college just amazed that if you didn't eat all day and had 5 shots of Jack, you might be a tad-bit buzzed.

I think there are too many parents out there who keep their children shielded from everything, to the point that they don't educate them as to what to expect. (See: don't teach my kids about contraception because if you do, they'll Do It.)

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm betting you were also taught that gentlemen drink responsibly and things of that nature. i.e, you didn't come to college just amazed that if you didn't eat all day and had 5 shots of Jack, you might be a tad-bit buzzed.

I think there are too many parents out there who keep their children shielded from everything, to the point that they don't educate them as to what to expect. (See: don't teach my kids about contraception because if you do, they'll Do It.)

yeah, absolutely. I was definitely taught to drink responsibly. Do I always do..........ummmm, no.

[UGAalum94]

The reported info. in this case makes the group look pretty bad. Letting a guy die of alcohol poisoning isn't brotherly or moral. Period.

Generally, however, I think there ought to be a pretty tight limit on how legally responsible we are for other people.

Yes, we all feel pressured to conform and do what others expect of us when we want to be members of a group. And yes, in the spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood, we ought to take good care of each other.

But, when adults willfully undertake activities that they know contain risks and are injured as a result, then I think the adults alone should be legally responsible.

In almost all of the college hazing cases, though, you have people of legal age to buy and consume alcohol providing it to people not of age, and that illegal act maybe should make them legally responsible for the outcome.

It's a really tough situation, and it's always tragic when a kid dies. But moms need to remember that their kids have free will. Sometimes they are mainly victims of their own bad judgment. The outcomes are sometimes tragic but it shouldn't mean someone else was more responsible for the outcome.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

The reported info. in this case makes the group look pretty bad. Letting a guy die of alcohol poisoning isn't brotherly or moral. Period.

I'm pretty sure no one "let" anyone die. It was a negligent act. To say they "let" it happen makes it sound like they were reckless with regard to the kid's life. That may well be the case, but based on the facts presented in the news article, I'd say there's a definite factual issue there.

Generally, however, I think there ought to be a pretty tight limit on how legally responsible we are for other people.

That gets to be tough. From the organization's perspective, yeah, we'd love this to happen. On the other hand, if nothing else is going to get the attention of our respective organizations, it'll be huge cash awards to plaintiffs and increased insurance costs. You're already seeing this. There are several examples of chapters being completely shut down just because they violate some hazing protocol whether there's a danger or not. These aren't small chapters either. Sigma Nu, for example recently shut down its MTSU chapter -- easily one of our top 10-15 chapters due to hazing. A few years earlier, it was Vanderbilt. Before that, Arkansas. Not even our old, respected southern chapters are immune where before the age of sky-high insurance, hazing was treated with a nod and a wink.

So these settlements hopefully force us to be safer, or they force the closure of organizations which refuse to hold their members accountable. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

Further (and I know, I'm getting political here), by setting caps on damage awards as you seem to be suggesting, you are harming parties injured by the negligence of others to protect the people causing the harm. That just ain't right. As for LaneSig, eliminating J&S liability does the same thing. It makes sure that organizations which cause harm to people and the people causing the harm have less liability. How about we just stop doing things which kill people? Is that so hard?

Yes, we all feel pressured to conform and do what others expect of us when we want to be members of a group. And yes, in the spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood, we ought to take good care of each other.

But, when adults willfully undertake activities that they know contain risks and are injured as a result, then I think the adults alone should be legally responsible.

Assumption of risk does not apply to crimes in most cases. Hazing is a crime, serving alcohol to minors is a crime. I'd say this young man would be in the class of persons which those laws are made to protect from harm. The term is negligence per se. At first glance, this definitely looks like a case of negligence per se.

It could probably be shown that in providing alcohol for an organizational function, the officers in charge were in fact agents of the organization. That's just one way I think you could get to the chapter.

In almost all of the college hazing cases, though, you have people of legal age to buy and consume alcohol providing it to people not of age, and that illegal act maybe should make them legally responsible for the outcome.

Jointly responsible. That means that the plaintiff sues anyone who could be at fault, gets his money from whoever is insured. Then, the insurance company turns around and gets contributions from the other co-defendants for whatever their liability is.

The theory is that the law's goal should be to make the plaintiff whole for the wrong to them. Let the negligent actors sort out the mess later.

It's a really tough situation, and it's always tragic when a kid dies. But moms need to remember that their kids have free will. Sometimes they are mainly victims of their own bad judgment. The outcomes are sometimes tragic but it shouldn't mean someone else was more responsible for the outcome.

While the victim may have been partially at fault here (and that could maybe be a defense), the organization and its officers certainly played a role. They are anything but innocent third parties (from what I've read).