Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity
Decision Date | 30 August 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 24318.,24318. |
Citation | 987 P.2d 300,133 Idaho 388 |
Parties | Rejena COGHLAN; Pamela J. Clarke, individually and as parent and guardian ad litem of Thomas Adam Coghlan and Michael J. Clarke, Jr.; Michael J. Clarke; Thomas Adam Coghlan, individually; and Michael J. Clarke, Jr., individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BETA THETA PI FRATERNITY, an Ohio nonprofit corporation; Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, an Illinois nonprofit corporation; Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, a Tennessee nonprofit corporation; Alpha Phi Sorority, an Illinois nonprofit corporation; and The University of Idaho; The Idaho State Board of Education; and John Does I-X, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Brady Lerma, Chtd., Boise; Spence, Moriarity & Schuster, L.L.C., Jackson, Wyoming, for appellants.G. Bryan Ulmer, III argued.
Keefe, King & Bowman, P.S., Spokane, Washington, for respondent Alpha Phi Sorority.Christopher J. Kerley argued.
Cosho, Humphrey, Greener & Welsh, Boise, for respondents University of Idaho and Idaho State Board of Education.Richard H. Greener argued.
Creason, Moore, Dokken & McIntosh, P.L.L.C., Lewiston, for respondent Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity.Theodore O. Creason argued.
Johnson, McLean, Devlin & Miller, Spokane, Washington, for respondent Beta Theta Pi Fraternity.J. Scott Miller argued.
Lynch & Associates, P.L.L.C., Boise, for respondent Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity.Katherine M. Lynch argued.
This is a tort action filed by a University of Idaho student who was injured when she fell, while intoxicated, from the third-story fire escape of her sorority house.
On August 19, 1993, Rejena Coghlan(Coghlan) was an eighteen-year-old freshman at the University of Idaho who had recently been notified of her admission to the Alpha Phi Sorority.At that time, the University of Idaho (University) and campus fraternities and sororities were celebrating the end of "Rush Week," which is an event sponsored and sanctioned by the University in conjunction with campus fraternities and sororities.On that day, Coghlan attended an Alpha Phi house meeting where she learned that the Alpha Phi members were invited to attend several parties sponsored by campus fraternities celebrating the end of "Rush Week."At the meeting, Alpha Phi's alcohol policy prohibiting underage drinking was briefly discussed, and Coghlan was assigned a "guardian angel" by the sorority.The "guardian angel" was an active member of the sorority who was supposed to provide Coghlan with assistance during the night's activities.Afterward, however, Coghlan's "guardian angel" allegedly told Coghlan that she would not be "hanging out" with her that night.
Later that evening, Coghlan attended two fraternity parties: one jointly sponsored by the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) and Pi Kappa Alpha (PKA) Fraternities which was held at the SAE Fraternity house and entitled the "Jack Daniels' Birthday"party, and the other held at the Beta Theta Pi (BTP) Fraternity house entitled the "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Liver"party.Two University of Idaho employees, both Greek advisors for the University, were in attendance at the BTP party.Coghlan alleges that one of the employees saw Coghlan at the BTP party and congratulated her for pledging Alpha Phi Sorority.Coghlan alleges that she was served beer and whiskey at the SAE/PKA party, and she was served mixed hard alcohol at the BTP party.She did not have any identification in her possession, and she was not asked at either party for identification prior to being served.
As a result of Coghlan's drinking at the fraternity parties, she became intoxicated and distraught.Coghlan was eventually escorted home by a sorority sister and put to bed in the third floor sleeping area of the Alpha Phi Sorority house.She later fell thirty feet from the third floor fire escape platform to the ground below.Coghlan was discovered a short time later lying in some bushes below the third floor fire escape landing.She was taken into the house and paramedies were called.As a result of her fall, she sustained permanent injuries.
On August 17, 1995, Coghlan and members of her family (collectively appellants) filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial seeking damages for injuries sustained from her fall from the Alpha Phi Sorority house.In her complaint, Coghlan alleges that the negligent and wrongful acts or omissions of the University, the fraternities which sponsored the partiesshe attended, and the Alpha Phi Sorority were the direct and proximate cause of her injuries and resulting damages.The district court dismissed Coghlan's claims against the University and the Idaho State Board of Education(University defendants) pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), holding that the University owed no duty of care to Coghlan.1The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the BTP and PKA Fraternities holding that the unambiguous language of I.C. § 23-808, Idaho's "Dram Shop"Act, bars suits by intoxicated persons against the server of alcohol and, in turn, bars any suits which are derivative of the intoxicated person's suit.The district court granted SAE Fraternity's motion for summary judgment on the same ground.On June 18, 1997, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Alpha Phi, and, after permitting the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to seek recovery from Alpha Phi on a premises liability theory, the district court granted summary judgment again in favor of Alpha Phi on October 7, 1997.
Coghlan and her family members appeal from an order granting the University defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), an order granting summary judgment in favor of BTP and PKA, an order granting summary judgment in favor of SAE, and orders granting summary judgment in favor of Alpha Phi Sorority.
The appellants present the following issues on appeal:
The appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that Idaho's Dram Shop Act, I.C. § 23-808, barred Coghlan's claims seeking to impose liability on the BTP, PKA, and SAE Fraternities and the Alpha Phi Sorority for providing alcohol to Coghlan.The district court ruled that Idaho's Dram Shop Act, I.C. § 23-808, does not recognize actions brought by intoxicated persons against the server of alcoholic beverages.Idaho's Dram Shop Act provides in part:
The district court correctly held that the unambiguous language of I.C. § 23-808(4)(a) prevents Coghlan from recovering from the providers of alcohol in this case.SeeWolfe v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co.,128 Idaho 398, 404, 913 P.2d 1168, 1174(1996)( ).Appellants do not challenge the district court's interpretation of the plain meaning of the statute, but instead challenge the constitutionality of I.C. § 23-808 on various grounds.
Appellants first argue that applying I.C. § 23-808(4)(a) to permit recovery by third parties, but not intoxicated persons, is a classification which violates the equal protection guarantees of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Univ. of S. Cal. v. Superior Court of Cnty. of L. A.
...company, homeowners association did not create a duty to protect residents from an inebriated driver]; cf. Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (1999) 133 Idaho 388, 400, 987 P.2d 300, [university assumed a duty to protect a student because two university employees were present to supervise ......
-
Oswald v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
...impose affirmative duties to protect or assist unless "unusual circumstances" justify such a duty. See Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity , 133 Idaho 388, 399, 987 P.2d 300, 311 (1999). Determining whether such "unusual circumstances" are present typically requires focusing on the "special......
-
Greenwalt v. Ram Restaurant Corp.
...within the text of an alcohol providers civil liability/immunity statute similar to Wyoming's ? 301); Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 133 Idaho 388, 987 P.2d 300, 306-09 (Id. 1999) (identifying classifications within the text of an alcohol providers civil liability/immunity statute sim......
-
Schieszler v. Ferrum College
...become intoxicated. See Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135 (3d Cir.1979) (finding no special relationship); Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 133 Idaho 388, 987 P.2d 300 (1999) (same); Univ. of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54 (Colo.1987)(same); Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413, ......
-
Taking a Bullet: Are Colleges Exposing Themselves to Tort Liability by Attempting to Save Their Students?
...other grounds by A.W. v. Lancaster Cnty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 784 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2010). 104. See, e.g., Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 987 P.2d 300 (Idaho 1999) (finding plaintiff raised sufficient facts to show University of Idaho assumed a duty to protect). 105. See, e.g., Schieszler ......
-
When Does a University Have a Duty to Protect Students from Campus Harms? The Fall of the Bystander Era and the Rise of a Special-Relationship Theory of Duty.
...to protect intoxicated student from injuries sustained while drinking on school-sponsored trip). But see Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Frat., 987 P.2d 300, 312 (Idaho 1999) (acknowledging university might have assumed duty to prevent furnishing of alcohol to underage students). In her survey of ......
-
Rushing to Get Rid of Greek Life and Social Clubs: The Impact of Bostock on Single-Sex College Organizations.
...from the danger of hazing through the appropriate control of fraternity-member activity). But see Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 987 P.2d 300, 312-13 (Idaho 1999) (holding that a university had no duty to protect students even though the university "had a policy against underage drink......
-
There's No Such Thing as Affirmative Duty
...place mats to prevent slipping, the case is one about an affirmative duty rather than regular negligence); Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 987 P.2d 300, 311 (Idaho 1999) (“‘[O]ne owes the duty to every person in our society to use reasonable care to avoid injury to the other person in ......