Update: Cox Litigation to Challenge Alpha Epsilon Phi’s “Sober Sister” Policy as an Assumption of Duty 

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

The tragic case arising from Sarah Cox’s catastrophic fall at an Alpha Epsilon Phi (AEPhi) event continues to move forward in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts.^[1] The litigation now centers on a novel legal question: whether a sorority’s internal “sober sister” policy can create a legally enforceable duty to protect members from alcohol-related harm.

Sarah Cox suffered permanent injuries after falling through a window during a “pre-formal” gathering at an off-campus apartment rented by chapter members. Her parents filed suit against the national sorority (“AEPhi”), the local Phi Omega Chapter (“Chapter”), the Chapter’s then-serving president, and the apartment’s property owners (“Property Owner Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs originally alleged that underage drinking and unsafe conditions at the event caused Sarah’s fall.

Most of those claims have since been dismissed. The Court ruled that Property Owners and individual members^[2]could not be held liable where the apartment’s windows complied with building code, and that Massachusetts law does not impose a general duty on social hosts to protect adult guests—even those under twenty-one—from voluntary intoxication. ^[3]

What remains is a focused dispute over AEPhi’s bylaws and risk management policies. Plaintiffs argue that by adopting rules requiring “sober sisters” and adherence to FIPG safety protocols, the sorority voluntarily assumed a duty to protect members like Sarah from foreseeable risks at social events. They claim the failure to assign sober sisters on the night of the accident directly contributed to her injuries.

AEPhi counters that risk management policies are aspirational guidelines, not enforceable duties, and that courts should not expand organizational liability by treating bylaws as contracts or safety guarantees.^[4]

On September 2, 2025, the Court allowed only this narrow theory to proceed: that the sorority’s “sober sister” policy might amount to an assumed duty.^[5] Discovery will now be limited to the purpose, enforcement, and operation of that policy, and whether not deploying sober sisters at the April 2023 event increased the risk of harm.

The Court’s ruling signals a cautious openness to expanding organizational liability where self-imposed policies arguably create expectations of safety. This case may prove instructive nationally as fraternities and sororities continue to balance the safety of their members, the risk management protocols demanded by insurers, and the legal exposure such policies may create in tragic circumstances.

[1] Grace Moseley, Family Sues Sorority and Property Owner Over Tragic Fall at Party, 187 Fraternal L. 1, 14 (Sept. 2024).

[2] Following extensive motion practice to amend the Complaint, additional defendants, including some other sorority members, were added.

[3] Decision and Order on Mots. to Dismiss, Cox v. Ramos, No. 2484CV00684 (Suffolk Cnty. Super. Ct., Sept. 3, 2025).

[4] Answer to Am. Compl., Cox v. Ramos, No. 2484CV00684 (Suffolk Cnty. Super. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025).

[5] Order, supra note 3.