1. Memorandum
To: John Samuelson
From: Francisco Moran
RE: Collins Hazing Case
Date: April 24, 2016
Issue
Under the Wisconsin wrongful death by negligence statute, was the fraternity liable for
forcing Joseph Collins to drink large amounts of alcohol that caused dangerous intoxication that
later would end his life? Were the members or Lambda Psi Delta liable for the negligence of
knowing what had happened and had not sought for help and ignored the situation? Was the
university also liable for misconduct of their students and for not enforcing policies that could
have avoided the fate of Joseph Collins?
Brief Answer
Yes. The people who had something to do with is are very liable, especially when it
comes to the university itself. The members and fraternity are very liable because they were
aware of the dangerous situation but ignored the signs and did nothing to help Joseph. The
school could have intervened as well and are just as liable as the fraternity because they are the
ones who make policies to prevent this but they didn’t put high measures to prevent situations
like hazing.

2. Legal Facts
Joseph Collins was going to Wisconsin State University and was planning on joining the
fraternity of Lambda Psi Delta. On September 14, 2014, Collins and other pledges were taken
into a secluded area of campus and were forced to drink large quantities of alcohol as a part of
the initiation process. Collins became very intoxicated and the members of the fraternity took
him back to the house and had not called the emergency medical assistance. The fraternity
members also told the other pledges to not call. So the members and pledges left him there with a
bucket next to Joseph for his vomit. The pledges and the members ignored the signs of
desperation of Joseph Collins and continued to party and drink the night away. The members
wrote derogatory remarks on Joseph’s body. The fraternity also went as far as to take pictures
with Joseph the way his lifeless body was. Emergency personnel were finally called to the house
at 9:00 a.m. the following day, but Collins had already died lying in a pool of his own vomit.
Coroner determined that he had actually been dead for at least four to eight hours and his blood
alcohol content was nearly .40.
Discussion
1) Fraternity & Members
Under Wisconsin’s Statute on recovery for death by wrongful act, it provides the
following: it states that when the death of a person is caused in a wrongful act such as negligence
or default that the party injured are entitled to maintain an action and recover damages in respect
thereof. Therefore, in every such case the person who would have been liable shall be liable to an
action for damages notwithstanding the death of the person who was injured. In this case Joseph

3. Collins suffered dangerous intoxication that caused him to die. His parents, our clients, are
holding responsible those who had to do with his death.
2) University, Fraternity, & Members
See Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis.2d 223, 238 and n. 3, 424 N.W.2d 159 (1988) which
states
“A person is negligent when [he or she] fails to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary
care is the care which a reasonable person would use in similar circumstances. A
person is not using ordinary care and is negligent, if the person, without intending
to do harm, does something (or fails to do something) that a reasonable person
would recognize as creating an unreasonable risk of injury or damage to a person
or property.”
Gritzner v. Michael R., 611 N.W.2d 906 (Wis. 2000) dealt with the failure to warn Tara’s
parents that she was sexually abused by Michael when one of the parents knew what Michael
was capable of.” Within the framework of a negligence case the particular conduct of a
defendant is not examined in terms of whether or not there is a duty to do a specific act, but
rather whether the conduct satisfied the duty placed upon individuals to exercise that degree of
care as would be exercised by a reasonable person under the circumstances.” See Walker v.
Bignell, 100 Wis.2d 256, 264, 301 N.W.2d 447 (1981)
This goes to prove that not only was the fraternity liable and negligent but so was each
and every single member of that fraternity, and also the university. As mentioned in the case
Gritzner v. Michael R., 611 N.W.2d 906 (Wis. 2000) the main issue with the case was there was
a lack of duty of care and that falls into play with the university. There was no duty of care in the

4. university’s case because they are also responsible for not trying to put a stop to hazing, for not
enforcing policies, and for not taking proper measures and security to prevent situations like this
especially when it comes to fraternities.
The members and fraternity also failed to do the same when they did not call any medical
assistance. The fraternity failed to provide any duty of care in the sense that they did not take any
safety measures for all the signs that Joseph Collins showed that could have saved his life if one
of the pledges or member would have done something.
All the case law is sufficient evidence to show and prove to the court that all three the
university, the fraternity, and the members of Lambda Psi Delta were all negligent in this case
and are liable in the wrongful death of Joseph Collins.
Conclusion
The facts show and prove that there is substantial evidence for why Michael and Melissa
Collins should bring wrongful death action against the fraternity, university, and the members of
the fraternity. The members did not take the proper duty of care and were negligent by forcing
the pledges to take high amounts of alcohol. The biggest evidence was that when the members
and fraternity knew that Joseph was not okay, neither the members or pledges bothered even
calling medical assistance and for their negligence Joseph lost his life.