## Facts

- Jason Jones became a pledge of the Nu Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order at Auburn University in September 1993.
- Hazing began within days and continued for much of the academic year, including being forced into a ditch containing foul substances, paddlings, physical abuse, forced consumption of unpleasant mixtures, late-night hazing sessions, and “running the gauntlet.”
- A substantial portion of the pledge class (about 20–40%) withdrew from the pledge program.
- Jones remained in the pledge program, seeking full membership, until he was suspended by the university for poor academic performance.
- Jones testified he understood he was free to withdraw from the pledge program at any time and was not physically forced to continue.
- Jones sued the local chapter, the national organization, and individual members, alleging negligent and wanton hazing (including based on Alabama’s criminal hazing statute) and assault and battery.

## Issues

1. Whether Jones voluntarily assumed the risks of hazing as a matter of law, barring his negligence claims.
2. Whether an alleged violation of Alabama’s criminal hazing statute could support negligence liability and, if so, whether assumption of risk still bars recovery.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court and held that Jones assumed the risk of hazing as a matter of law.
- The Court treated assumption of risk as a complete defense to negligence and reinstated summary judgment for the local chapter and individual defendants on Jones’s negligence claims.
- The Court did not resolve the negligence-per-se question; it assumed for purposes of analysis that negligence could be shown and held the claims were nonetheless barred by assumption of risk.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

## Legal Principles

- In Alabama, assumption of risk bars negligence recovery when the plaintiff (1) had knowledge of the risk and (2) voluntarily consented to bear it.
- Assumption of risk may be decided on summary judgment when the evidence permits only one reasonable inference on knowledge and voluntariness.
- Peer or social pressure does not, by itself, negate voluntariness where the plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to withdraw and understood that option.
- Even if conduct may violate a safety-related criminal statute, assumption of risk can still operate as a complete defense to negligence claims.

## Conclusion

Because Jones knew of the hazing practices early, experienced them repeatedly over time, acknowledged he could quit, and remained to pursue fraternity membership while others withdrew, the Court held he voluntarily assumed the risks and could not recover on negligence theories.


Ex parte Barran, 730 So. 2d 203 (Ala. 1998)