Washington's highest court has issued a significant ruling in a case stemming from the death of a young fraternity member at Washington State University. The decision centers on a hazing incident that left a 19-year-old fraternity member dead back in 2019, and it addresses how much responsibility a university bears for what happens to students who pledge its fraternities and sororities.
The case grew out of a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of Samuel Martinez, the student who died. In its decision, the court affirmed an appeals court stay in that lawsuit. The ruling came down by a narrow margin, with the justices split 5 to 4, underscoring how divided the court was on the questions at the heart of the case.
At the core of the ruling is the relationship between the university and the fraternity involved. The court found that Washington State University holds a special relationship with Gamma Chi, the WSU chapter of the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity. That finding is central to how the case will proceed, because it shapes what legal obligations the school may have had.
According to the ruling, that special relationship carries real legal weight. The court said the relationship means the university has a duty of care to Martinez and to other fraternity and sorority pledges. In other words, the school could be held to have owed a responsibility to protect students going through the pledging process, not just the fraternity itself.
Even with that finding, the court stopped short of deciding the ultimate question of fault. The court did not make a ruling on liability, leaving open whether the university can actually be held legally responsible for Martinez's death. The decision established the duty of care without determining whether that duty was violated.
Instead, the justices sent the dispute back down for further proceedings. The court returned the case to the lower court to decide whether the school breached its duty to Martinez. That means the lawsuit brought by his parents will continue, with the lower court now tasked with weighing whether the university failed to meet the responsibility the top court has now recognized.