When will a fraternity die

[exlurker]

The May 25 student paper has an update with statements from one of the young man's friends. The friend was reportedly also at the event.

http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/disp.../42949b689ae0d

[Tom Earp]

Swell, He was not on the invited list. Damn, Damn.

Just happened to stop by as had friends there. Came by to see them and all shit breaks loose.

The main problem seems to be, the party was supposedly over, some friend comes by and gets tramaticly hurt.

But, it comes down to Greek Organizations.

So, even though there are security items in place, it is not scripted. Things like these can happen when there is no or some control.

If I lived in the House and I invited a friend over, He trips and falls down the stairs, I am at fault for inviting Him over. The Chapter and Fraternity is at fault.

High, I am A Greek, I am under a Legal Microscope, for actions of one kind only not the others where Money, Time, and Energy are given to Many Charitys.

So, Just Why Do I want to continue to want to be a Greek?

As Otter said, "Is This Not a Total Indictment of The Total Greek System"?

[roqueemae]

Originally posted by Little E
I feel horrible for that young man, his family and his chapter. The reality is that no one was egging him on and there is slightly unclear information about if he was drinking. While it does sound like he was, it doesn't sound like it was a fraternity wide sponsored event. I think we need to remember that people being stupid will never change. He probably helped build the pool, he had to have known at some (sober) level that it was way too shallow to dive into. However, (and I'm not call him stupid, but the diving intot he pool) at some point this society has to say that your bad judegement does not make me liable.
/soapbox

I am going to second this one. Who thinks it is right to dive in a shallow pool?

[NebraskaDelt]

Originally posted by Tom Earp

A past COO told me that most Nationals were problematic when it came to Funds as Risk Insurance will keep going higher when many stupid things are done and law suits are filed. Remember whether one wins or loses, there is still a large outlay of money for legal fees.

He also stated that there could be mergers among Nationals for preservation sake. Before turning noses up about this, just take time to think about how stable your own organization is.

Active dues are a monetary input, but not near enough to pay for Staff, IHQs, Regional and National meetings, publications, etc.

I heard the same thing from our international officers at our last regional conferences. We have to remember that not all "National" organizations have 100+ chapters. A lot of them have 50 or less. They will have to merge to stay alive. They do not have the alumni support as some of us do. While looking at some of the NIC national organizations, some of them do not have travelling consultants or risk management procedures. It's really sad.

[Tom Earp]

NebraskaDelt


Thanks for the confirmatin, but it seems to be a reality.

None of us want to Change, but Reality may be the Key.

Unless, the Active Chapters want to Change and Fly Right, then It may become a Fact!

I dont want to see ATO, DKE, SX, ETC have to go this way, it may be the Future!

[PhoenixAzul]

Originally posted by roqueemae
I am going to second this one. Who thinks it is right to dive in a shallow pool?

YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED!!! As a lifeguard for almost 5 years now, I have seen completely sober adults dive headfirst into 3 ft of water and act SURPRISED! when I insist that they don't do it. "I've always done it". NO! That' s not an excuse! And when kids see older people doing it, they assume they can do it, which is not the case. Grrrr... </lifeguard soapbox>

[DolphinChicaDDD]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED!!! As a lifeguard for almost 5 years now, I have seen completely sober adults dive headfirst into 3 ft of water and act SURPRISED! when I insist that they don't do it. "I've always done it". NO! That' s not an excuse! And when kids see older people doing it, they assume they can do it, which is not the case. Grrrr... </lifeguard soapbox>

Seriously. I think people + pool= immediate stupidity...and it multiplies with the more people who are in a group.

[roqueemae]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED!!! As a lifeguard for almost 5 years now, I have seen completely sober adults dive headfirst into 3 ft of water and act SURPRISED! when I insist that they don't do it. "I've always done it". NO! That' s not an excuse! And when kids see older people doing it, they assume they can do it, which is not the case. Grrrr... </lifeguard soapbox>

I lifeguarded too. I wouldn't let anyone dive in less than 4 ft. 2 ft is a kiddie pool!

[pinkyphimu]

lifeguard here too....i even swam competitively and learned to dive in shallow water (as low as 3 ft). i still argue with people because they think they used to do it, so they should be allowed to know. then there are the parents who get upset bc you won't let their kids jump in the shallow water. and you know they would be the first to sue if thier kid got hurt.

as far as this situation...it sucks that this group will probably be held accountable for something bc they did not strictly follow thier guest list.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Alpha Sig Scott
One multi-million dollar judgement against a fraternity is all it would take. It's not hard to imagine a risk management situation that could initiate such a lawsuit. Could a national fraternity survive such a disaster?

Actually, it's even worse than that.

We've had this discussion before, but it's been a while, so it may be time to remember that there are a number of fraternities who basically are uninsurable. Many of those have banded together to fund their own insurance for those fraternities -- having the plan administered by a professional group.

If that plan were ever to become unsolvent because of large judgements against its members, all of the groups in the consortium could be in serious trouble.

As for this particular case, even though the injured party was not on the guest list, the pool aparently was on chapter property and the group will almost certainly be liable. I may not invite people to walk on my sidewalk, but if someone slips on the ice, I get sued.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

All the article (the last link posted) constantly and REPETITIVELY debates is whether or not he was an invitied guest which is besides the point. The party was OFFICIALLY OVER therefore I would say the guest list is null and void because it was no longer applicable to whatever was occuring at the house.

Hopefully the fraternity will eventually no longer be harrassed because we can not control the individuals actions regardless of whether or not he was invited/uninvited to the house. Also, I hope it wasn't something I overlooked but as far as I know there was no mention of providing him with the actual alcohol that caused him to be drunk and since he was allegedly not alone, any of his friends accompanying him should have taken closer care of their intoxicated friend.

There was no official mention of a lawsuit, but I'm guessing that the best and most preventative thing a house can do is escort, or have a friend of someone who is undesired (and/or drunk) and present in the house, escort him or her elsewhere to be intoxicated or reckless. (Provided that they are not drunk off the fraternity's alcohol because it WILL get traced back to them)
And not provide or allow for the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those who are underage or known for reckless behavior.

Of course this would keep them on their toes all the time, babysitting everyone that walked in and out of their house and is a great deal of work; but unless they avoided gatherings on the premises period, there would be no other way. People gravitate to fraternity houses and parties for a good time and I have WITNESSED non-members take advantage of not only their hospitality, but their alcohol availability as well. ALL at the expense of the fraternity and frankly, it makes me ILL.

[kddani]

Originally posted by BabyPiNK_FL
All the article (the last link posted) constantly and REPETITIVELY debates is whether or not he was an invitied guest which is besides the point. The party was OFFICIALLY OVER therefore I would say the guest list is null and void because it was no longer applicable to whatever was occuring at the house.

Actually whether he was a guest or not is BIG deal legally and liability wise. There's a big difference between a guest and a trespasser

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by kddani
Actually whether he was a guest or not is BIG deal legally and liability wise. There's a big difference between a guest and a trespasser

That makes perfect sense to me, but we've all seen stories where a burglar or robber has tripped over something in the place he/she is ripping off, gets hurt, sues and wins!

Don't you think that the fact that these guys had this "unsafe" swimming pool at their house is going to make them liable no matter what the other circumstances are?

[kddani]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
That makes perfect sense to me, but we've all seen stories where a burglar or robber has tripped over something in the place he/she is ripping off, gets hurt, sues and wins!

Don't you think that the fact that these guys had this "unsafe" swimming pool at their house is going to make them liable no matter what the other circumstances are?

As always it depends on how good of a lawyer they have And the law of the state and how it's been interpreted

I've actually never seen a story where a burglar trips over something, sues, and wins. And never saw any of that in torts class. The only time i've seen a burglar sue successfully is in the case of a spring gun/trap gun (someone sets up a gun to shoot anyone that comes through the door while they're away).

Got any links to any?

[Little E]

These stories make me sad and frustrated.

About the pool thing, I loved Great Lakes (course it was always too cold to go IN) but it is a liability waiting to happen. A body of open water w/out a fence in someone's front yard? Negligant suburban parents have probably been sued for less...