Yost v. Wabash Coll., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 54A01–1201–CT–31.,54A01–1201–CT–31.
• Citation: 976 N.E.2d 724
• Parties: Brian YOST, Appellant–Plaintiff, v. WABASH COLLEGE, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity—Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens, Appellees–Defendants.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

976 N.E.2d 724

Brian YOST, Appellant–Plaintiff,

v.WABASH COLLEGE, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity—Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens, Appellees–Defendants.

No. 54A01–1201–CT–31.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Oct. 2, 2012.

Patrick A. Elward, Karl L. Mulvaney, Briana L. Clark, Bingham, Greenebaum, Doll, LLP, Anne L. Cowgur, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Thomas R. Schultz, Schultz & Pogue, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee Wabash College.

Douglas B. King, Matthew M. Adolay, Maureen E. Ward, Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc. and Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity—Indiana Gamma Chapter.

OPINION

CRONE, Judge.

Case Summary

Who is responsible when fraternity boys engage in impromptu activities that escalate to the point where one of them is seriously injured? In this case, eighteen-year-old Wabash College freshman Brian Yost and his fraternity pledge brothers decided to throw an upperclassman brother in a nearby creek to celebrate his twenty-first birthday. Afterwards, they tried to do the same thing to two other upperclassman brothers, but they were unsuccessful. Shortly thereafter, four upperclassman brothers decided to carry Yost to the shower and run water on him. On the way to the bathroom, upperclassman Nathan Cravens joined the group and placed Yost in a chokehold. Yost went limp, and the brothers dropped him on the floor. He suffered physical and mental injuries and had to withdraw from school.

Yost filed a personal injury action against Phi Kappa Psi National Fraternity (“Phi Psi National”) and Phi Kappa Psi—Indiana Gamma Chapter (“Phi Psi”) (collectively, “Phi Psi Defendants”), Wabash College (“Wabash”), and Cravens, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, claiming that they owed no duty to Yost as a matter of law, and the trial court granted both motions.

Yost now appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants (collectively, “Appellees”).¹ Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that (1) Appellees were not negligent because they owed him no duty to protect him from the activities that led to his injuries; (2) Appellees did not assume a duty to Yost; (3) Appellees are not vicariously liable; and (4) Appellees are not liable for punitive damages. Finding that the designated evidence supports summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History²

The relevant facts are largely undisputed. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on September 4, 2007, Wabash freshman Yost and some other pledges of the Phi Psi fraternity decided to “creek” Steve Abbott, an upperclassman brother who was turning twenty-one. “Creeking” involves taking a brother to be submerged in nearby Sugar Creek and is generally done to celebrate either his engagement or his twenty-first birthday. After they successfully completed the “creeking,” they unsuccessfully attempted to “creek” another brother who was leaving to study abroad. Shortly thereafter, Yost suggested that the group “creek” another brother, Grant Schmutte, who was a close friend of Yost and was already twenty-one. When the group converged on Schmutte in his room at about 2:00 a.m., Schmutte resisted, and several guys began to wrestle. Eventually, the other pledges left, and Schmutte and Yost continued to wrestle.

Schmutte then decided to “shower” Yost, and a few upperclassmen brothers assisted.³ “Showering” involves placing a brother under running water in the shower and is often done to celebrate birthdays or other occasions. Yost flailed and resisted, not wanting to “back down from a fight.” Appellant's App. at 370. As four Phi Psi brothers carried Yost to the shower, Cravens approached. Cravens, a former wrestler, placed Yost in a chokehold, and Yost went limp. When the brothers saw that Yost had lost consciousness, they panicked and dropped him. Yost suffered physical injuries as well as mental injuries that affected his memory and concentration. Neither Yost nor Phi Psi reported the incident to Wabash officials at that time, and Yost eventually withdrew from school. He re-enrolled at Wabash and re-pledged Phi Psi in the fall of 2008. Again, he did not complete the semester. Fifteen months after the incident, Cravens's parents sent Wabash officials a letter describing negative changes in their son's personality that they attributed to his participation in the Greek system at Wabash.⁴

On August 25, 2009, Yost filed a personal injury action against Cravens, the Phi Psi Defendants, and Wabash. The trial court entered a default judgment against Wabash for failure to respond to Yost's discovery requests. Wabash nevertheless filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, Wabash filed a motion for relief from default judgment, and the trial court granted the motion.

Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the Phi Psi Defendants filed a motion to strike certain documents from Yost's designated evidence. The trial court held a hearing on all motions. On December 14, 2011, the trial court granted in part the Phi Psi Defendants' motion to strike certain portions of Yost's designated evidence and granted summary judgment in favor of Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants. In its summary judgment order, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that Yost was not the victim of hazing:

[Yost] admits that he instigated the series of events that led to the accident. There is no evidence from which it may be inferred that his actions in initiating the attempted creeking of his pledge father, and the wrestling that ensued, were coerced or otherwise forced by others. There is no evidence that any of the fraternity members' actions—whether categorized as hazing, horseplay or a “hall brawl”—created a substantial risk of bodily injury. Accepting [Yost's] version of the incident, he was not injured until (a) Cravens caused him to lose consciousness and (b) the other (nonparty) fraternity brothers released their grip on his arms and legs and he fell to the floor. The acts of the fraternity brothers—including [Yost]—may have been negligent, but [Yost] has not shown that they were criminal.

Appellant's App. at 23–24.

Because the claims against Cravens were unresolved, Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants filed a motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 54(B). The trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment for Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants on December 29, 2011. Yost now appeals the trial court's judgment.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

Yost contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wabash and the Phi Psi Defendants. We review the trial court's decision to grant or deny summary judgment using the same standard as the trial court. Worman Enters., Inc. v. Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 805 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind.2004). A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only when the pleadings and designated evidence reveal that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Bank of New York v. Nally, 820 N.E.2d 644, 648 (Ind.2005). In determining whether issues of material fact exist, we must accept as true those facts established by evidence favoring the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts against the moving party. Id. A trial court's decision to grant summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the appellant bears the burden of proving that the trial court erred. Alexander v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff, 891 N.E.2d 87, 92 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied (2009).

Here, as part of its summary judgment order, the trial court issued an eighteen-page statement containing the undisputed material facts and its conclusions concerning Yost's various theories of recovery against each defendant. We note that the trial court is not required to provide written findings and conclusions on summary judgment and that the conclusions are not binding on appeal, but they offer valuable insight into the trial court's rationale and thus help facilitate our review. First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley, 891 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. We may affirm based on any theory supported by the designated evidence. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Davis, 860 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App.2007).

Negligence and Duty

Yost contends that the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that Appellees were not negligent. To prevail upon a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence that (1) the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered an injury proximately caused by the breach. Humphery v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., 916 N.E.2d 287, 290 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases. Id. However, the existence of a duty is a question of law, and absent a duty, there can be no breach and therefore no negligence. Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1, 6–7 (Ind.2010). Summary judgment is appropriate when the undisputed material evidence negates one element of a negligence claim. Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382, 385 (Ind.2004).

Yost argues that Appellees had a duty to protect him from his brothers' actions that led to his injuries. In Webb v. Jarvis, our supreme court stated that the duty of reasonable care is not owed to the world at large, but rather, to those who might reasonably be foreseen as being subject to injury by the breach of the duty. 575 N.E.2d 992, 997 (Ind.1991). In that case, the court held that three factors must be balanced to...