Washington Supreme Court Finds University Owed Duty of Care in Fraternity Hazing Death

Megan Suckow, Manley Burke LPA, megan.suckow@manleyburke.com

The Washington Supreme Court recently held a state university owed a duty of care to a fraternity member who died following an alcohol-related hazing event, allowing his family’s wrongful death lawsuit against the university to proceed.1 The divided court concluded the university’s longstanding relationship with a recognized fraternity, together with the university’s knowledge of prior hazing and alcohol-related concerns and its ability to exercise control over the chapter, created a “special relationship” sufficient to impose a duty to protect fraternity members from foreseeable harm.2

The case arose from the November 2019 death of 19-year-old Washington State University (“WSU”) freshman Sam Martinez (“Martinez”).3 Martinez was a new member of Gamma Chi, the WSU chapter (the “Chapter”) of Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity (“ATO”).4 During the Chapter’s annual “Big-Little” event, pledges consumed alcohol as part of the initiation ritual.5 Martinez became heavily intoxicated and later died from acute alcohol poisoning.6 His blood alcohol concentration was approximately 0.375.^[1] Following his death, WSU revoked its recognition of the Chapter, and ATO later revoked the Chapter’s charter.^[2]

Martinez’s parents subsequently sued WSU, alleging WSU failed to protect Martinez from foreseeable hazing and alcohol-related misconduct.^[3] The trial court initially granted summary judgment in WSU’s favor, concluding WSU did not owe Martinez the asserted duty.^[4] The Washington Court of Appeals reversed in 2025, finding a duty arose from WSU’s special relationship with the Chapter.^[5] The Washington Supreme Court affirmed that ruling on July 30, 2026, in a 5-4 decision.^[6]

WSU’s Relationship with the Fraternity Was Central to the Court’s Decision

The Washington Supreme Court analyzed the case under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315(a).^[7] Under that framework, a defendant may owe a duty to protect foreseeable victims from the conduct of a third party when the defendant has (1) a “definite, established, and continuing relationship” with that third party and (2) some ability to control the third party’s conduct.^[8]

The majority found both elements present.^[9] WSU had recognized the Chapter since 1911 and entered into annual relationship agreements with the Chapter.^[10] Through its fraternity and sorority life system, WSU imposed requirements concerning alcohol, hazing, housing, education, and continued recognition.^[11] WSU could require meetings and educational programming, investigate alleged misconduct, impose sanctions, place conditions on continued recognition, and ultimately revoke recognition.^[12] The Court emphasized absolute control was unnecessary; rather, the relevant inquiry was whether WSU possesses sufficient ability to address the foreseeable harm.^[13]

The majority also focused heavily on foreseeability.^[14] According to the Court, WSU had received reports of alcohol misuse and hazing involving the Chapter before Martinez’s death and had previously investigated and addressed concerns involving the Chapter.^[15] WSU had also identified first-year fraternity members, particularly men, as a population at heightened risk of harm from alcohol misuse.^[16] Shortly before Martinez’s death, WSU officials, Chapter representatives, and representatives of ATO had discussed concerns involving alcohol and first-year students.^[17] Based on that history, the majority concluded Martinez was a foreseeable potential victim of the type of harm associated with the Chapter’s hazing practices.^[18]

The Court identified several mechanisms through which WSU could exercise control over the Chapter, including imposing alcohol- and hazing-related conditions on recognition, requiring meetings with WSU advisors, communicating with Chapter and ATO leadership, requiring risk-management and educational programming, investigating reported violations, imposing sanctions, and revoking recognition.^[19] Those mechanisms, the majority concluded, gave WSU enough control over the Chapter to support a duty to take reasonable steps to protect foreseeable victims from hazing-related harm.^[20]

The Court Distinguished Its Prior Decision Limiting University Liability

WSU relied heavily on the Washington Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Barlow v. State.^[21] There, the Court declined to impose a duty on WSU to protect a student from another student’s conduct at an off-campus party, reasoning in part WSU lacked sufficient control over the individual student who committed the alleged assault.^[22]

The Martinez majority found the circumstances materially different.^[23] Rather than relying on the general relationship between WSU and its students, Martinez’s family relied on WSU’s specific and longstanding relationship with the WSU-recognized Chapter.^[24] The Court found WSU had substantially more information about the Chapter’s history and substantially greater ability to influence the Chapter’s conduct than it possessed over the individual student in Barlow.^[25]

A Closely Divided Court

The 5-4 decision produced a significant dissent. Justice Barbara Madsen, writing for the dissenters, disagreed that WSU’s relationship with the Chapter qualified as the type of “special relationship” traditionally recognized under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315(a).^[26] In the dissent’s view, WSU and the Chapter shared what was better characterized as a contractual business relationship that provided mutual benefits, rather than the type of relationship involving sufficient control traditionally associated with duties to control third parties.^[27]

The dissent also stressed the Chapter operated off-campus and its agreement with WSU expressly recognized WSU and the Chapter as separate entities.^[28] While WSU could discipline the Chapter or withdraw recognition after violations, the dissent questioned whether those disciplinary tools amounted to sufficient preventative control over the Chapter’s off-campus activities.^[29]

What the Decision Means for the Fraternal Industry

The decision does not establish WSU breached its duty or WSU is ultimately responsible for Martinez’s death.^[30] The Washington Supreme Court expressly limited its holding to the threshold question of duty and remanded the case for further proceedings.^[31] A factfinder may therefore still have to address breach, causation, damages, and other remaining issues.

Nevertheless, Martinez is significant for colleges, universities, and fraternal organizations because the Court looked beyond the physical location of the incident and focused instead on the nature of the relationships among WSU, the Chapter, and students. The fact the Chapter’s activities occurred in privately operated, off-campus locations did not eliminate WSU’s potential duty where WSU maintained an ongoing recognition relationship, possessed information concerning prior risks, and retained mechanisms for influencing the Chapter’s conduct.

For fraternal organizations, the decision also underscores the importance of clearly defining the respective responsibilities of universities, national organizations, local chapters, alumni or housing entities, and undergraduate members. Recognition agreements, housing arrangements, risk-management communications, prior disciplinary history, and coordination between university officials and national organizations can become important evidence when a court later evaluates who knew of a risk, who possessed authority to address it, and what reasonable preventive measures were available.

The ultimate outcome of the Martinez litigation remains unresolved, as the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the holding. The Washington Supreme Court’s decision, however, makes one point clear: when an institution has a longstanding relationship with a recognized organization, knowledge of recurring risks, and meaningful mechanisms to respond to those risks, an off-campus location alone may not insulate that institution from a duty of care.

1 Martinez & Houtz v. Wash. State Univ., No. 104108-0, slip op. at 2 (Wash. July 30, 2026).

2 Id. at 17.

3 Monique Merrill, Washington high court finds state university can be held liable over hazing death, Courthouse News Serv. (July 30, 2026), https://www.courthousenews.com/washington-high-court-finds-state-university-can-be-held-liable-over-hazing-death.

4 Id.

5 Martinez, No. 104108-0, slip op. at 15.

6 Id.

[1] Merrill, supra.

[2] Id.

[3] Martinez, No. 104108-0, slip op. at 15-16.

[4] Id. at 2.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 2, 31.

[7] Id. at 17.

[8] Id. at 19.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 19-20.

[11] Id. at 23-24.

[12] Id.

[13] See id. at 22-27.

[14] See id. at 19-22.

[15] See id. at 9-10.

[16] Id. at 21.

[17] Id. at 10.

[18] Id. at 22.

[19] Id. at 23.

[20] Id. at 27.

[21] Mitchell Roland, WSU can be held liable for Sam Martinez hazing death, state Supreme Court rules, Spokesman-Rev. (July 30, 2026), https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/30/wsu-can-be-held-liable-for-sam-martinez-hazing-dea.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] See Martinez, No. 104108-0, slip op. at 19-22.

[25] See id. at 20-21.

[26] See Martinez, No. 104108-0, slip op. at 1-4 (Madsen, J., dissenting).

[27] Id. at 10-11.

[28] Id. at 7.

[29] See id. at 4-8.

[30] Martinez, No. 104108-0, slip op. at 30.

[31] Id.