## Facts

- Norwich University, a private military college, appointed upperclass cadets (“cadre”) to indoctrinate and orient incoming freshmen (“rooks”) under institutional authority and training.
- William C. Brueckner, Jr., a Navy veteran attending on an \$80,000 Naval ROTC scholarship, enrolled as a rook in August 1990.
- Over sixteen days, cadre subjected Brueckner to repeated hazing, including obscene harassment, meal interrogations preventing him from eating, interference with studying (including soaking/destroying academic work), forced squatting while being sprayed with water, and unauthorized calisthenics despite an injured shoulder; he was also physically handled and struck on the injured shoulder.
- Brueckner reported hazing to university officials but believed it would not stop; he withdrew, and his ROTC scholarship was terminated.
- Norwich had formal anti-hazing rules and provided training against hazing, but evidence showed senior administrators knew of serious prior hazing, knew rooks were often intimidated from reporting, and an officer had previously been discouraged from reporting; when hazing was reported to a senior vice president in the past, perpetrators were disciplined and discipline was publicly announced.
- A jury found Norwich liable on tort claims arising from the hazing and awarded nearly \$500,000 in compensatory damages (including emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of scholarship, and lost earnings) and \$1.75 million in punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Norwich could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for torts committed by cadre during rook orientation activities.
2. Whether Norwich owed and breached a duty of reasonable care in supervising the cadre (negligent supervision), and whether the evidence supported negligent infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether compensatory damages for lost future earnings were supported by evidence rather than speculation.
4. Whether punitive damages were permissible absent proof that Norwich acted with malice or bad motive.

## Decision

- Affirmed denial of Norwich’s post-trial motions as to liability, including vicarious liability and negligent supervision.
- Affirmed compensatory damages, including the lost-earnings component.
- Reversed the punitive damages award for insufficient evidence of malice or bad motive.
- Entered judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- An institution may be vicariously liable where tortious conduct is similar to or incidental to assigned duties and occurs in the course of performing authorized functions, even if the conduct violates institutional rules.
- A university may owe students a duty of reasonable care in supervising those placed in authority over other students; knowledge of persistent prior misconduct and foreseeable underreporting can support a finding of breach.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress may be supported where there is sufficient physical impact or physical harm connected to the claimed emotional injury.
- Lost future earnings are recoverable when supported by an evidentiary foundation permitting reasonable inferences of causation and amount; they need not be proven with mathematical certainty.
- Punitive damages require proof of malice or bad motive beyond negligence; evidence of formal prohibitions, training, and meaningful past discipline may weigh against a finding of the required wrongful intent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld compensatory liability against a university for hazing carried out by cadets assigned to orient new students and for negligent supervision in light of known hazing risks, but set aside punitive damages because the evidence showed negligence rather than malice.


Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 730 A.2d 1086 (Vt. 1999)