A Tale of Two Cases: How Alleged Special Relationships Affect University Liability 

Timothy M. Burke and Haellie Gordon, Fraternal Law Partners

Introduction

On January 21, 2025, the Washington State Court of Appeals issued two simultaneous decisions analyzing Washington State University’s (“WSU”) responsibility for students’ injuries stemming from alleged fraternity hazing and alcohol abuse. In one case, Martinez v. Wash. State. Univ., the Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment dismissing WSU from a lawsuit regarding the death of a student, Samuel Martinez (“Mr. Martinez”), from acute alcohol poisoning following what the Court called a “hazing ritual.”[1] In the other case, Cornelius v. Alpha Kappa Lambda, the Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment dismissing WSU from a lawsuit regarding the alleged hazing of another student, Austin Cornelius (“Mr. Cornelius”).[2]

Despite the overwhelming similarities between the cases, the Court of Appeals reached dramatically different conclusions. The reason? The plaintiffs asserted claims under different sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and by extension, alleged different relationships under which WSU allegedly owed a duty of care to the respective students.

In Martinez, the plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 344 (alleging a special relationship between WSU and Mr. Martinez) and 315(a) (alleging a special relationship between WSU and the Gamma Chi chapter of Alpha Tau Omega (“Gamma Chi Chapter”)). In Cornelius, however, the plaintiff only asserted a claim under Section 344 (alleging a special relationship between WSU and Mr. Cornelius).

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing WSU for each plaintiff’s claims under Section 344, finding no special relationship between WSU and either plaintiff student. However, the Court reversed summary judgment dismissing WSU from Mr. Martinez’s Section 315(a) claim, finding WSU owed a duty of care to Mr. Martinez based on the special relationship between WSU and the Gamma Chi Chapter.

Restatement (Second) of Torts §344: Special Relationship with the Student

Both Martinez and Cornelius involved the question of what responsibility WSU has to protect its students under Section 344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.[3] More specifically, each plaintiff alleged WSU owed them a duty due to WSU’s special relationship with its students.[4]

Under Section 344, a special relationship may arise where a person is helpless, totally dependent, or under the complete control of someone else for decisions relating to their safety. In both cases, the Court of Appeals applied the decision of the State of Washington Supreme Court in Barlow v. State, in which the Supreme Court was asked two questions:

(1) Does Washington law recognizes a special relationship between a university and its students, giving rise to a duty to use reasonable care to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of other students?; and  (2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, what is the measure and scope of that duty?[5]

The questions posed in Barlow arose from a lawsuit involving a negligence claim against WSU after a student was sexually assaulted by another student at an off-campus party.[6] The Washington Supreme Court held that (1) Washington law recognizes a special relationship between a university and its students, giving rise to a duty to use reasonable care to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of other students; (2) the duty exists where a student is on campus or at a university sponsored or controlled event, similar to a business invitee; and (3) the measure and scope of the duty is based on a student’s enrollment and presence on campus or participation in university controlled actives.

With that direction, the Court of Appeals in both Martinez and Cornelius held that there was no special relationship between WSU and the plaintiff students.[7] The Court further held that even if there was a special relationship between WSU and the plaintiff students, WSU did not owe a duty to the plaintiff students based on such special relationship, as the alleged hazing (1) occurred off campus and/or (2) did not occur during WSU-controlled or sponsored activities.[8]

While each plaintiff alleged WSU’s promotion and encouragement of student participation in fraternal organizations, among other things, characterized such organizations as WSU-controlled or sponsored, the Court rejected this idea. Instead, the Court found that hazing is neither part of WSU’s curriculum nor closely related to its delivery to educational services and therefore is not an activity sponsored or controlled by WSU.[9] The Court in Cornelius went a step further to state that even if the plaintiff could establish the activities were on campus and part of an activity sponsored or controlled by WSU, he would have to also establish that the harmful activities were foreseeable under Restatement (Second) of Torts §344, Comment f, which Mr. Cornelius was unable to do.[10]

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of both plaintiffs’ claims under Section 344 of the Restatement against WSU.

Restatement (Second) of Torts §315: Special Relationship

In Martinez, Plaintiff’s claim under Section 315(a) of the Restatement contended that a special relationship existed between WSU and Gamma Chi such that WSU had a duty to control and/or mitigate Gamma Chi Chapter’s conduct and prevent physical harm to Mr. Martinez.[11] While the plaintiff in Cornelius originally pursued a claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts §315(b), the Court of Appeals determined the claim was abandoned based on plaintiff’s failure to address it in their appeal.[12]

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals considered WSU’s continued recognition of the Gamma Chi Chapter for over a century, WSU’s interactions with the chapter, the terms of WSU’s agreements with Gamma Chi Chapter—including the “Relationship Agreement for Residential Fraternities and Sororities” and the “University Approved Housing Standards Agreement”—and WSU’s ability to control the chapter. Based on these considerations, the Court found a defined, established, and continuing relationship between WSU and the Gamma Chi Chapter, and that WSU had sufficient ability to control its recognized fraternities, including this particular chapter. Therefore, the Court held that WSU had a duty to use reasonable care to control Gamma Chi Chapter and to protect foreseeable victims from the harm caused by hazing.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals in Martinez reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim under Section §315(a) against WSU and remanded for further proceedings.

Conclusion

Martinez and Cornelius provide important insight into the differences between a university’s relationship with its students versus fraternal organizations and the duties that arise therefrom. While the Court of Appeals found no special relationship between WSU and its students, it did find a special relationship between WSU and Gamma Chi Chapter based on the defined, established and continuing relationship between WSU and Gamma Chi as well as WSU’s ability to control its recognized fraternities, including Gamma Chi. As such, while these cases on appeal did not directly involve the potential liability of fraternal organizations, the Martinez case is certainly one our readers should be familiar with.

We will also wait to see whether WSU appeals the Court of Appeals’ decision in Martinez to the Washington Supreme Court or how the case proceeds on remand, as either could significantly shape the scope of liability in similar cases.

[1] Martinez v. Wash. State Univ., No. 83853-9-I, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 (Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2025).

[2] Cornelius v. Alpha Kappa Lambda, No. 84657-4-I, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 (Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2025).

[3] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *39; Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *6.

[4] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *39; Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *8-9.

[5] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *34-40 (citing Barlow v. State, 2 Wn.3d 583, 588–89 (2024)); Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *7-12 (citing Barlow, 2 Wn.3d at 588–89). 

[6] Barlow, 2 Wn.3d 583.

[7] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *40; Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *17.

[8] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *40; Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *12–14.

[9] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *39-41; Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *9–11

[10] Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 at *16.

[11] Martinez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 82 at *40.

[12] Cornelius, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 74 n.2.