## Facts

- Tracey D. Johnson, an Indiana University student, attended a party at the Delta Tau Delta (DTD), Beta Alpha Chapter house after being invited by a member.
- Beer was served at the party, including from a keg, and alcohol consumption was widespread.
- Joseph P. Motz, a DTD alumnus, drank before and during the party.
- Johnson and Motz went to a room in the fraternity house where they drank hard liquor and socialized.
- Motz locked the door and sexually assaulted Johnson.
- Johnson sued Motz, the local chapter (DTD), and the national fraternity (National), asserting common-law negligence (failure to protect her from foreseeable criminal acts), a statutory dram shop claim against DTD, and negligence against National based on alleged voluntary undertaking.
- Evidence in the record included prior criminal or disorderly incidents around the chapter house and National-provided materials addressing alcohol misuse and sexual assault risks.

## Issues

1. Whether DTD, as possessor of the premises, owed Johnson (an invitee) a common-law duty of reasonable care to protect her from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties on the property.
2. Whether DTD could be liable under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act for providing alcohol to Motz, based on statutorily required actual knowledge of visible intoxication at the time alcohol was furnished.
3. Whether National, through policies and risk-management materials, voluntarily undertook a duty to protect Johnson, creating negligence liability.

## Decision

- Transfer was granted, vacating the Court of Appeals decision that had directed summary judgment for DTD and National on duty.
- The court held DTD owed Johnson a common-law duty of reasonable care as a landowner toward an invitee, and the negligence claim against DTD could proceed.
- The court held the dram shop claim against DTD could not proceed because the evidence did not show DTD had actual knowledge that Motz was visibly intoxicated when alcohol was provided.
- The court held National did not voluntarily undertake a duty to protect Johnson merely by issuing policies and educational/risk-management materials.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- In Indiana negligence law, duty is a legal question evaluated by considering the relationship of the parties, reasonable foreseeability of harm, and public policy.
- A landowner/possessor generally owes invitees a duty to exercise reasonable care for their protection while on the premises, which can include reasonable measures addressing foreseeable third-party criminal acts.
- Foreseeability of third-party criminal acts may be assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, rather than requiring a nearly identical prior incident.
- Dram shop liability requires proof the alcohol provider had actual knowledge the recipient was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcohol was furnished.
- Voluntary-undertaking liability depends on the scope of the undertaking; general policies, guidance, or educational materials, without more, do not establish a duty to provide direct protection to third parties at local events.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court allowed the invitee’s premises-liability negligence claim against the local fraternity chapter to proceed based on foreseeable risk under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, but barred the dram shop claim for lack of proof of actual knowledge of visible intoxication and rejected negligence liability against the national fraternity for lack of a voluntary undertaking creating a protective duty.


Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999)