A New Duty to Protect Students from Fraternity Hazing
In a first-of-its-kind ruling on July 30, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court held that a university can owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable hazing by a fraternity with which it maintains a formal recognition relationship. The decision arose from the November 2019 death of Sam Martinez, a 19-year-old Washington State University freshman who died of acute alcohol intoxication during a fraternity new-member event. The case now returns to the trial court to determine whether Washington State University breached the duty the Supreme Court recognized.
Seeking Accountability After a Hazing Death
“For six years, we have waited for the chance to tell Sam’s story to a jury,” said Jolayne Houtz, Sam’s mother and founder of HazingInfo.org. “This case has always been about three things: Honoring Sam, saving the lives of other young people, and ensuring no other families are shattered by the loss of their child to hazing.”
Recognition, Not Just Anti-Hazing Policies
Unlike earlier precedent, including the 1991 Delaware Supreme Court decision in Furek v. University of Delaware, the Washington court grounded the duty in the special relationship created by the university’s recognition, oversight, and control of the fraternity rather than in an assumed duty arising from anti-hazing policies.
When Knowledge and Control Create a Duty to Prevent Hazing
“When you have knowledge, and you have control, you have a duty,” Becky Roe, an attorney with Schroeter Goldmark & Bender who represents the Martinez family, told The Seattle Times. “That’s a common principle of law that hasn’t been adopted in this area before. That’s what I hope is the lasting legacy of the legal opinion.”
Promoting Fraternities While Omitting Hazing Risks
“Central to this is the fact that universities directly promote membership in fraternities, sometimes enabling direct marketing by fraternities to students before they even arrive on campus as incoming freshmen,” said attorney Doug Fierberg, whose firm also represented Sam’s family. “In virtually all of this persuasive marketing, universities fail to address, disclose, or otherwise accurately identify the long-known risks of pledging and membership.”
Required Public Disclosure of Hazing Findings
This longstanding transparency gap is beginning to close under the federal Stop Campus Hazing Act. When an institution issues a finding of responsibility for hazing against any established or recognized student organization, including a fraternity or sorority, it must now publicly disclose that finding—along with a general description of the violation and any sanctions imposed—in a Campus Hazing Transparency Report posted in a prominent location on the institution’s website.
What Institutions Should Examine About Hazing and Recognition
Although Martinez is binding only in Washington, the decision offers higher education institutions nationwide an opportunity to examine their own recognition relationships. Key questions include how much institutions actually know about hazing within organizations to which they are closely tied—including those involving mutual financial or operational benefits—and whether they are effectively using the oversight and control tools those relationships provide to prevent foreseeable harm.