State Supreme Court to decide whether WSU can be held liable for hazing death

The Washington Supreme Court will decide whether universities have a duty to protect students from hazing in a case arising from the 2019 death at a Washington State University fraternity.

The alcohol-poisoning death of 19-year-old Sam Martinez has already prompted changes to state and federal law, leaving the state’s highest court to decide an ongoing legal battle to determine whether WSU can be held liable.

The Washington Court of Appeals found in January that universities have a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm, including in off-campus situations, when a “special relationship” exists.

“Because WSU has a special relationship with its recognized fraternal organizations, we conclude that it owed a duty to use reasonable care to control the fraternity and protect Sam from the foreseeable harms of fraternal hazing and alcohol misuse,” Judge Bill Bowman wrote in his opinion.

The university appealed, and lawyers representing the school argued that a recent court decision exempts WSU from what happens at an off-campus, private residence.

Nicholas Ulrich, a lawyer representing WSU, cited a 2024 state Supreme Court decision that found WSU not liable for the sexual assault of a student during an off-campus party by a student with previous complaints of sexual misconduct.

“Barely 20 months ago, and after lengthy deliberation, this court issued the opinion of Barlow v. State, where it held that because the university has no ability to control the off-campus, private conduct of adult students, the university does not owe a duty to students off-campus, in non-school sponsored activities,” Ulrich said during oral arguments before the court Thursday.

Lawyers for the Martinez estate, however, argued that this case is “materially different” than Barlow. It arose, the attorneys said, out of a well-known hazing event where overconsumption of alcohol was encouraged.

Fraternities are under the jurisdiction of the university, and Martinez belonged to a “small subset of male undergraduate students known to WSU who were at risk of being hazed by Gamma Chi in Fall 2019,” the lawyers claimed.

By promoting and protecting fraternities for decades through school-sponsored events and communication, WSU sought to ensure families that “recognized fraternities such as Gamma Chi had the WSU stamp of approval,” the attorneys wrote in court filings.

“WSU had various mechanisms of control to address, mitigate, and warn its students and their families about those risks,” they wrote. “Yet, time and again, WSU chose instead to bolster the credentials of its recognized fraternities and push its freshmen, including Sam, to ‘Go Greek!’ ”

Rebecca Jane Roe, a lawyer representing Martinez’s parents, argued Thursday that the court would not need to either overrule or disturb the Barlow finding to rule in their favor.

There is no timeline for the court to issue rulings, and it could take months.