Yale fraternity sued over death.

[tuco99]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Then why do you "doubt" they were sued?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by tuco99

Then why do you "doubt" they were sued?

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.

"It's our claim that what happened at Yale two years ago was very clearly, definitively and obviously a Sigma Phi Epsilon-sponsored fraternity event."

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

It's entirely possible to name somebody in a lawsuit that isn't legally liable, which might be the case here.

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.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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?

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by KDCat

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.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by tuco99

Then why do you "doubt" they were sued?

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?