WSU can be held liable for Sam Martinez hazing death, state Supreme Court rules

OLYMPIA – The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that universities have a duty to protect students from hazing, in a case arising from a 2019 death at a Washington State University fraternity.

In a 5-4 decision, the court found that WSU owed 19-year-old freshman Sam Martinez a “duty of care because of its special relationship with Gamma Chi,” the fraternity where he died. The decision means that the university can be found liable for his death, though the court did not decide whether WSU breached its duty.

The ruling upholds a decision by the Washington Court of Appeals, which found in January 2025 that universities have a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm, including in off-campus situations, when a “special relationship” exists.

“It should surprise no one that a house run by young men and full of other young men, many away from home for the first time in their lives, is fertile ground for abusing alcohol and engaging in dangerous initiation rituals,” the opinion, written by Justice Sal Mungia, states. “It was certainly no surprise to WSU.”

The opinion states that WSU’s control over off-campus fraternities “is sufficient” to establish a duty of care to members, which included “taking reasonable steps to ensure” that university rules against alcohol misuse and hazing were being followed.

“We express no opinion as to whether WSU did or did not breach that duty. This appeal only addresses the issue of whether WSU owed Sam such a duty,” the opinion states. “We hold that it did.”

WSU appealed the January 2025 ruling, and a lawyer representing the university argued during a state Supreme Court hearing in October 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.

Lawyers for the Martinez estate, however, argued that this case is “materially different” from 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.

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

In her dissent, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that WSU did not have a special relationship with Gamma Chi, and that it was “more accurately described as a contractual business relationship.”

“The relationship here lacks the characteristics typical of a special relationship, which is typically an intimate one-on-one relationship between two individuals,” the dissent states. “Gamma Chi does not have such an intimate relationship with WSU – one that is akin to a patient with their psychiatrist or a parolee with their parole officer.”

Following the ruling Thursday, WSU released a statement saying the case may now move forward to a trial.

“While this decision does not determine the outcome of this case, the university respects the judicial process and will continue to engage responsibly and thoughtfully as the case moves forward,” the statement reads.

According to the statement, the university and its legal counsel will “take time to carefully review and analyze the court’s decision before determining next steps.”

“Because this case remains in active litigation and out of respect for the legal process, the university will not comment further on the specifics of the case at this time,” the statement says.

The statements adds that WSU is continually strengthening policies and oversight related to hazing prevention and alcohol misuse.