Family Sues Sorority and Property Owner Over Tragic Fall at Party 

Grace Moseley¹ Fraternal Law Partners, grace.moseley@manleyburke.com

On May 12, 2024, Batul Kazim, William Cox, and Sarah Cox filed a complaint² against multiple defendants, including the Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority (AEPhi), AEPHi’s Phi Omega Chapter (the “Chapter”), and the former chapter president, Maggie Scales (collectively, the “Sorority Defendants”) for negligence stemming from an incident that left Sarah Cox, Batul and William’s daughter, with “catastrophic injuries.”³

On March 31, 2023, Sarah, a junior at Northeastern University and member of the Chapter, attended a pre-formal gathering at an apartment (the “Property”) rented by Ms. Scales and others, and owned by Defendant Ramos Properties II, LLC (“Ramos Properties”).⁴ During that party, Sarah fell twenty feet from the second story window of the apartment onto the pavement, and has been in a catatonic state ever since.

Plaintiffs seek 10.2 million dollars for Sarah’s ongoing and future medical care and the upheaval to the lives of Batul Kazim and William Cox who claim they “now have to provide care and support of every aspect of Sarah’s life 24 hours per day and 7 days per week on a permanent basis.”⁵

The Complaint asserts that Maggie’s apartment was “openly used”⁶ as the Chapter’s sorority house and was used for “personal social gatherings as well as Sorority events and gatherings.”⁷ Sarah’s tragic fall from the second story kitchen window occurred purportedly due to the kitchen being overcrowded with thirty or more intoxicated people at the time of the accident.

The Complaint sets forth three claims each against the Property Owner Defendants. These claims include negligence based on their purported (1) allowance of overcrowding by intoxicated college students in a unit with low-positioned windows; and (2) failure to properly maintain the property by not having window screens securely installed in the low-positioned windows in the unit. Ramos is also alleged to have failed to sufficiently warn Sarah of the dangers created by windows installed at a low position.

With respect to the Sorority Defendants and an unnamed individual, the Complaint asserts claims against each for negligence and failure to warn. According to Plaintiffs, both the Chapter and AEPhi “had a duty to ensure that their members prevent dangerous conditions during Sorority related activities and events safe for those attending such events,”⁸ and should have known the property was being used as the Sorority house and would foreseeably result in dangerous conditions due to overcrowding and alcohol usage, despite no allegation that alcohol actually contributed to or otherwise caused Sarah’s fall.

The Property Owner Defendants filed crossclaims against the Sorority Defendants and an unnamed individual for contribution, common law indemnification, and—in the case of Maggie Scales—contractual indemnification. The Property Owner Defendants also denied having knowledge that the Property was being used as a sorority house. In their respective Answers to the Property Owner Defendants’ crossclaims, each of the Sorority Defendants denied any negligence whatsoever for Sarah’s fall.

Separately, the Sorority Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rule 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. In doing so, the Sorority Defendants refuted Plaintiffs’ claim that the apartment was designated and used as the Chapter’s sorority house. They also called attention to the abstract nature of the Complaint, which contains few facts about the events leading up to Sarah’s fall from the window, and simply presumes that it was caused by the number of intoxicated people in the apartment:

Did she trip? Lose her balance? Slip on something on the floor? Was she pushed? Did she sit on a windowpane? Was the window improperly designed? Was she inebriated? We do not know other than Cox seeks to blame her sorority sisters.⁹

Plaintiffs opposed the Sorority Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, acknowledging that the facts surrounding the incident are murky, but explaining that, due to the severity of Sarah’s injuries, she cannot communicate what happened. Furthermore, Plaintiffs claimed they cannot compel testimony from witnesses present that evening without pursuing legal action.¹⁰

On September 11, 2024, the Superior Court of Suffolk County denied the Sorority Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, but ordered Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint by October 11, 2025, to include answers to the following questions raised by the Court during oral argument:

• Does Ms. Cox herself have the capacity to bring this suit on her own behalf;
• What facts show a plausible link between the alleged conditions and Ms. Cox’s fall; and
• How each of these Sorority Defendants caused or contributed to the conditions that Plaintiffs allege led to the fall.

            As this case progresses, we will provide substantive updates that may be of interest to our readers.

1  Grace has recently joined the Manley Burke Team as law clerk. Grace graduated from Stetson University College of Law in May.

2 Complaint, Cox v. Ramos, No. 2484CV00684 (Suffolk Cnty. Super. Ct.).

3 Id. at ¶ 26.

4 The Complaint also names Marcia Ramos, the manager and controller of Ramos Properties. Ramos Properties and Marcia Ramos, collectively, are hereinafter referred to as the “Property Owner Defendants.”

⁵Id. at ¶ 170.

6 Id. at ¶ 18.

7 Id. at ¶ 19.

8 Id. at ¶ 72.

9 Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Cox, No. 2484CV00684 (filed July 1, 2024).

10 Objection to & Response to Defs.’ Motion to Dismiss, Cox, No. 2484CV00684, at *6–8 (filed July 1, 2024).