The text below was supplied by the Scoop Newsroom app. Third-party reporting is attributed in the source panel.
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. In a 5-4 decision , 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.
Breaking news moves fast. Follow @Will466513 on X for breaking news alerts. Follow on X →