S.M. enrolled at Washington State University (WSU) as a freshman in 2019 and pledged Gamma Chi, a chapter of the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity. During the fraternity’s annual “Big-Little” initiation event, new members were expected to consume alcohol as part of the ritual. After drinking heavily first at the fraternity’s off-campus house and later at the chapter house, S.M. died from acute alcohol intoxication. His parents brought a wrongful death action against WSU, alleging that the University negligently failed to protect him despite years of knowledge about alcohol abuse and hazing within the fraternity.
Although the fraternity houses were located off campus and owned by affiliated organizations rather than the University, WSU maintained an extensive relationship with its recognized fraternities. In exchange for official recognition, fraternities received numerous benefits, including use of the University’s name and trademarks, recruitment assistance, access to incoming student contact information, inclusion in University marketing materials, advising services, participation in campus events, and, for certain chapters, the ability to house first-year students who would otherwise be required to live on campus. In return, fraternities agreed to comply with University policies governing alcohol, hazing, risk management, and student safety, and were subject to ongoing oversight by WSU’s Center for Fraternity and Sorority Life.
WSU’s agreements prohibited alcohol at fraternity social events, prohibited underage drinking at fraternity functions regardless of location, and expressly banned hazing, including hazing involving alcohol. The University also retained authority to investigate violations, require educational programming, impose probation, suspend or revoke recognition, withdraw freshman housing privileges, and permanently terminate a fraternity’s recognition.
The record in this case demonstrated that WSU had long recognized fraternities as presenting heightened risks associated with alcohol misuse and hazing. Years before S.M.’s death, University task forces concluded that fraternity members, particularly first-year male students, were disproportionately involved in serious alcohol-related incidents. WSU also had substantial knowledge of Gamma Chi’s troubled history: the University had previously sanctioned the chapter for alcohol-related hazing, received a 2017 report that a first-year student had been forced to consume large quantities of alcohol and subjected to aggressive hazing, and met with chapter and national fraternity leadership regarding continuing alcohol-related concerns. WSU also received reports that underage drinking continued at the fraternity’s off-campus residence used by members, and University officials knew that incoming members remained vulnerable despite prior intervention efforts.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of WSU, concluding that the University owed no legal duty to S.M. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
The Washington Supreme Court held that WSU owed S.M. a duty of reasonable care based upon its special relationship with the fraternity. The Court explained that such a duty may arise when an institution: (1) maintains a continuing relationship with a third party; and (2) possesses sufficient ability to control that third party’s conduct to prevent foreseeable harm.
The Court concluded that both elements were satisfied. First, WSU’s longstanding relationship with Gamma Chi gave it detailed knowledge of the fraternity’s repeated alcohol violations, hazing practices, and the particular risks facing first-year pledges. In fact, in the months leading up to S.M.’s death, leadership from the fraternity and its national chapter met with WSU to discuss concerns about alcohol and first-year students at the off-campus housing. Second, the University exercised meaningful control over the fraternity through annual recognition agreements, required risk-management policies, regular meetings with University advisors, mandatory educational programming, investigations, sanctions, probation, and the ultimate ability to revoke recognition entirely. According to the Court, these measures demonstrated sufficient control even though WSU did not directly manage the fraternity’s day-to-day activities or own the off-campus property where the hazing occurred.
The Court distinguished its recent decision in Barlow v. State, which had declined to impose a duty based solely on the relationship between a university and its students. In Barlow, a WSU student was assaulted by another WSU student at an off-campus party. Unlike an individual student, Gamma Chi maintained an ongoing contractual relationship with the University that afforded WSU significant oversight and enforcement authority. Because WSU had voluntarily created that oversight structure, promoted fraternity participation, and retained the power to enforce safety requirements, the Court concluded that the University could owe a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure its anti-hazing and alcohol policies were actually followed.
The Court emphasized that it was deciding only the existence of a legal duty, not whether WSU actually breached that duty. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligence claims.
Martinez v. Wash. State Univ. (July 30, 2026, No. 104108-0) 2026 WL 2196394.
Note:
Although this case arose in the university fraternity context, its reasoning may have broader implications for private schools that formally recognize, sponsor, or oversee student organizations, athletic teams, clubs, performing arts programs, or other extracurricular activities. The decision suggests that when a school affirmatively promotes an organization and retains authority to monitor and discipline it, those actions may also create a corresponding duty to reasonably enforce those rules.