Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT 2O Other Personal Injury
NOTICE TO DEFEND
"NOTICE"
"AVISO"
Asociacion de Licenciados
de Filadelfia
Servicio de Referencia e
Informacion Legal
One Reading Center
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, RICHARD A. BRAHAM, administrator of the ESTATE OF MARQUISE A.
BRAHAM, through his attorneys, for his Complaint against the above-referenced Defendants,
states as follows:
Introduction
1.
This is a death case arising from violent hazing Marquise A. Braham suffered
during his freshman year at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), Altoona, and the
absolute failure by Penn State and its employees to stop the brutal hazing, to intervene to protect
Marquise as his physical and emotional health were visibly deteriorating, or to notify his family
and obtain the assistance Marquise authorized and needed when numerous Penn State staff
directly observed him to be in extreme, dangerous psychological crisis. As a result, Marquise
took his own life by jumping from the roof of the Long Island Marriott Hotel in Uniondale, New
York.
2.
Marquise regularly and directly made Penn State staff aware of the fact he was
being physically hurt and hazed by brothers in the Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity (Phi Sig). By
December 2013, Penn State staff knew Marquise had been hazed for months, including, among
other things, being forced to consume gross amounts of alcohol, chug bottles of Listerine,
swallow live fish, fight fellow pledges; being burned with candle wax, deprived of sleep for 89
hours, locked in a room with other pledges, alcohol, and a trashcan to catch their vomit; having a
gun held to his head; and being forced to kill, gut, and skin animals.
3.
Penn State staff knew Marquise was suffering physically, psychologically, and
academically. Rather than intervene, report, and prevent such illegal misconduct from
continuing, as required by Pennsylvania law and Penn States own policies and procedures, Penn
State disregarded this information, failed to act, and actually counseled Marquise over a period
of months to endure the hazing, telling him, among other things: You poor thing . . . Your
keeping a good spirit tho. Keep your chin up boo!! . . . Stay strong little buddy. You are almost
done and youve been so strong. Your kicking ass!=).
4.
By March 2014, Penn State staff observed that Marquise was in a dangerous
psychological crisis as a result of being hazed. Upon information and belief, Penn State staff
finally reported their concerns about Marquises health and circumstances to senior
administrators at Penn State. No action was taken to protect Marquise, intervene, or advise his
family of his crisis, despite Marquise having executed FERPA waivers, and Penn States own
privacy policies authorizing Penn State to communicate directly with his family concerning
emergency health matters.
5.
Marquise left Penn States campus, went to confession before a priest to repent
for his fraternity sins, and took his own life, leaving his family forever devastated and
searching for answers. Marquises family brought their questions to Penn State, but Penn State
kept secret from them the fact that multiple Penn State employees knew and reported to Penn
State administrators he was in dangerous psychological crisis as a result of hazing immediately
prior to his suicide, and that they negligently or recklessly failed to take any action to protect him
or advise the family of this emergency so that the family could save Marquises life.
6.
8302, and Pennsylvanias Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8301, to recover damages for the
devastating injuries and death needlessly caused by the tortious misconduct of each of the
Defendants as further alleged below.
Parties
7.
8.
The Surrogates Court of New York, Queens County, appointed Plaintiff as the
York.
sole administrator of Marquises Estate by decree issued on September 9, 2014 (File No. 20143146).
9.
Plaintiff filed with the Office of the Register of Wills of Philadelphia County,
behalf of the Estate pursuant to Pennsylvanias Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, and wrongful
death claims on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate pursuant to Pennsylvanias Wrongful
Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8301.
11.
The statutory beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act are Plaintiff and
Marquises natural mother, Marie-Yves Braham, both of whom reside at 141-45 250th Street,
Rosedale, New York 11422.
12.
incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. Penn State maintains its headquarters at 201 Old
Main, University Park, PA 16802.
13.
14.
Pennsylvania 15846-1217. At all relevant times, Ms. Bish was an employee of Defendant Penn
State and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of her agency with, Defendant Penn State.
15.
Pennsylvania, 16651-1138. At all relevant times, Ms. Mosley was an employee of Defendant
Penn State and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of her agency with, Defendant Penn
State.
16.
Defendant The Grand Chapter of Phi Sigma Kappa (Grand Chapter) is a non-
profit corporation which is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Grand Chapter maintains
its headquarters at 2925 East 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46240. Grand Chapter is the principal
of Defendant Iota Septaton Corporation of Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity.
17.
Defendant Grand Chapter recruits members, regularly conducts business, and has
19.
New Jersey 08043-1536. At all relevant times, Mr. Traister was president and a member of
Defendant Iota Septaton and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of his agency with,
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton.
20.
Park, Pennsylvania 19078. At all relevant times, Mr. OConnor was vice-president and a
member of Defendant Iota Septaton and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of his agency
with, Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton.
Jurisdiction and Venue
21.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.
22.
This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Penn State pursuant
931.
to 42 Pa.C.S. 5301 because Defendant Penn State is incorporated under the laws of
Pennsylvania and carries on a continuous and systematic part of its general business within
Pennsylvania.
23.
This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants Bish and Mosley
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 5301 because they are domiciled in Pennsylvania, or, alternatively,
specific personal jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 5322 because they caused tortious injury
by acts or omissions in Pennsylvania.
24.
This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Grand Chapter
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 5301 because it carries on a continuous and systematic part of its
general business within Pennsylvania, or, alternatively, specific personal jurisdiction pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S. 5322 because it caused tortious injury by acts or omissions in Pennsylvania.
25.
This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Iota Septaton
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 5301 because it is incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and
carries on a continuous and systematic part of its general business within Pennsylvania.
26.
This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant OConnor pursuant to
This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants Traister and
OConnor pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 5322 because they caused tortious injury by acts or omissions
in Pennsylvania.
28.
Grand Chapter and Penn State regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County, and Defendant
Grand Chapters actions, inactions and negligence, as alleged herein, are governed by Grand
Council, and a member thereof specifically, Ed Kovacs resides and conducts business for
Grand Chapter and its Pennsylvania chapters, including Defendant Iota Septaton, in Philadelphia
County.
Marquises Background
29.
Marquise was the oldest child of his parents and was deeply devoted to both his
immediate and extended family. He was a reverent Catholic and devoted to his faith throughout
his childhood and adult life.
30.
Uniondale, New York, where he excelled academically and consistently made the honor roll.
31.
program for mentoring elementary school students, and the varsity track and field team.
32.
sought to change his major to physical therapy so he could more directly help people. He also
joined the Residence Halls Association and became Secretary of that organization as he sought to
become a Resident Assistant for the following academic year, consistent with his desire to be of
service to others.
The Brutal Hazing of Marquise and Penn States Knowledge Thereof
35.
In September 2013, at the start of Marquises freshman year, he began the process
of joining, or pledging, Phi Sig through its local chapter at Penn State Altoona, Defendant Iota
Septaton.
36.
controlled, directed, organized, participated in, or planned by Defendants Grand Chapter, Iota
Septaton, Traister, and OConnor.
37.
(Specifically, Marquise and other pledges were locked in an attic, then taken to
the basement where there were two kegs of beer and two large trash cans in the
middle of the room. The pledges were ordered to drink beer until they filled the
two trash cans with vomit. At least one officer of Defendant Iota Septaton was
10
present at all times to order them to drink. The pledges were then returned to the
attic, cycling back and forth for two days, with little rest or food.);
b.
being videotaped;
c.
d.
e.
g.
j.
Having hot wax dripped on their backs until they consumed a bottle of
liquor.
38.
The hazing of Marquise and his fellow pledges began in early October 2013, and,
by the end of that month, Marquise was sharing details of what was happening to him with a
Resident Assistant in his dormitory, Defendant Bish, engaging her by text on October 31, 2013,
to bid on him in an auction to prevent him from being the pledge who raised the least amount of
money. Ms. Bish asked what would happen if he were the pledge who raised the least amount of
money, and Marquise replied, I cant tell you but its nothing good lol. Ill tell you another time
when Im not surrounded by brothers.
11
39.
On November 3, 2013, Marquise texted Ms. Bish: I think were going to do the
milk challenge this upcoming week because we all messed up last week. Im not sure if Im
Ready for that haha. Ms. Bish replied, Your gonna throw up. Its better to just chug and get it
over with then go the whole hour feeling yucky.
40.
Marquise went on to inform Ms. Bish, I feel like Ive done so much that it cant
get any worse but it always does lol. Ms. Bish replied, yes it will get worse. Im sorry to say
hahaha but it will. Marquise then stated: When I first started to pledge I didnt think I would
be doing the stuff that Im doing right now. And how do u know its going to get worse? Ms.
Bish replied, I know sigma pi got worse. And yours is worse than theirs so I can only imagine
hahaha.
41.
The next day, Marquise informed Ms. Bish he was forced to eat shaving cream
sprinkled with tobacco dip and a live goldfish and forced to chug vinegar followed by milk to
curdle in their stomachs. Marquise complained that his stomach felt like it was on fire, and
Ms. Bish recommended he eat something to soak up all that shit and [b]read will help.
42.
Marquise was forced to kill, gut, and skin a squirrel. He texted a photo of the
carcass to Ms. Bish, who replied, Yummy!!!! She asked whether the dissection was for a
class, and Marquise told her it was for the frat.
43.
At one point, Marquise texted I expected worse last night, but thats bit whats
worrying me. The president and the sentinel almost got into a fist fight over how we were being
hazed. The pres thinks that we arent being punished enough and since he has the say, I think
were fucked.
44.
During hell week, when Marquise was required to be at the Chapter house at all
times unless in class, and a professed eighty-nine hours without sleep, Marquise texted Ms. Bish,
12
Im try to stay awake haha. Ms. Bish responded, Hahahaha try harder!! Can you text while
you are there? Marquise then replied, Ive been through stuff and ik [I know] for a fact its
only going to get worse for me. And yeah I can text pretty often at the house. Unless Im
getting hazed of course. Ms. Bish replied, You poor thing . . . Your keeping a good spirit tho.
Keep your chin up boo!!
45.
Ms. Bish continued to condone the hazing of Marquise, even as he told her he was
being required to fight. Marquise texted, I hear the worst is pretty much over.. All ik [I know]
is that we fight tn [tonight]. Ill feel much better if I tell you everything. When Im a brother.
Ill try to make it. Ms. Bish replied, I dont even know what to say. Im so sorry boo. You
make me so proud of how strong you are. . . Keep chugging along boo. Marquise later texted
Ms. Bish he thought he had sustained a concussion, to the point of fearing he would fall into a
coma were he to fall asleep, and he was taking another pledge to the hospital. Ms. Bish replied,
Stay strong little buddy. You are almost done and youve been so strong. Your kicking ass! =)
hope the tea helped.
46.
asked Ms. Bish about it and she replied, youll be okay. Youll just puke a lot. And itll burn.
Later, Marquise texted: Just finished my bottle, first one to finish o Too. Ill see you tomorrow
if Im lace. Then he texted Alive. Ms. Bish replied,:Haha your cute. Goodnight =).
47.
journal entry in which Marquise admitted that abusive alcohol consumption was negatively
affecting his health, stating I simply drink more than any human being should and I can see it
taking its toll on me. Ms. Mosley noted on his journal, How will you balance this w/the RA
13
position? How will you role model to your students? Defendant Bish knew such alcohol
consumption was directly related to, and required by, the hazing Marquise was enduring.
Marquises Psychological Crisis
48.
The next semester, having been initiated and now a member of Phi Sig, Marquise
was elected to the executive board position of secretary of Defendant Iota Septaton, which
required him to be present for the hazing of the next class of pledges. The hazing of the new
pledge class began with the locked in ceremony, which took place on or about February 24-26,
2014.
49.
participation in this hazing. He struggled deeply with having to witness and participate in the
hazing of others.
50.
Within days of the lock-in ceremony, Marquise texted Ms. Bish on March 4,
2014, Ive just been going through some stuff recently and its affecting my schoolwork. Ms.
Bish texted later, Im just worried about you baby Quise. . . Thats all.
51.
On March 5, 2014, Marquise texted a friend from home, Im just hanging in here
haha. Hazing season just started so Im kinda glad to go back home. Some of this shit is just
hard to watch when youre a brother.
52.
On March 6, 2014, Marquise texted Ms. Bish, I just never thought I would get to
the point where I needed counseling. That just isnt me uk [you know]. Sometimes I just feel
like Im falling apart . . . Ms. Bish responded, You just have a lot more serious things going
on than I do right now . . . I am worried about you. I didnt know it was this bad. You almost
cried a few times =(. Marquise then replied, Looks like were in this together. I just really
14
hate showing emotions. I dont even remember the last time I came close to crying like that. I
cant stand talking about myself or my past uk [you know] it hurts.
53.
The dialogue continued with Ms. Bish stating, I know it does Quise. But this
isnt something you can bottle up . . . Marquise replied, Idk [I dont know] Kar. Ill see. Ms.
Bish replied, No Im not suggesting this. Im telling you. Im worried as fuck about you . . .
Marquise agreed to go to counseling upon return from spring break and suggested he was not
really that bad, to which Ms. Bish texted, Lie to yourself all you want.
54.
Upon information and belief, on March 7, 2014, Defendants Bish and Mosley
reported to their supervisor that they believed Marquise was in a state of dangerous
psychological crisis. Upon information and belief, they or their supervisor forwarded this
information to Penn States Dean of Student Activities but no action was taken to intervene, get
Marquise immediate help, or inform Marquises parents of his psychological crisis, despite
Marquise having signed a waiver allowing Penn State to communicate directly with his parents
regarding his academic and health issues. Moreover, Penn States health policy provides:
It is the policy of the University to render emergency assistance to students who
are seriously injured, suffer serious illness, or experience other personal
emergencies while attending the University, and to notify and assist the families
of students who have died, are seriously ill or injured, are missing or experience
other personal emergency situations.
Under such policy, Penn State assures parents that it will inform them about a student emergency
with or without the students actual consent. The purpose of such policy and regulation is to
protect a particular class of students, of which Marquise was a member.
55.
Marquise left Penn State for spring break on March 7, 2014. Once home,
Marquise wept when telling his aunt he needed to confess his fraternity sins.
15
56.
The hazing endured by Marquise, and then the hazing of others which he was
required to witness as a condition of being a member of Phi Sig, debased Marquises strong
Catholic principles and desire to help others so severely, Marquise confessed to his priest, I
have sinned, and told him he had been marked by the fraternity.
57.
On March 14, 2014, the day before Marquise was to return to Penn State Altoona
and rejoin the fraternity hazing, Marquise jumped to his death from the roof of the Long Island
Marriott Hotel in Uniondale, New York, which is an eleven-story building.
58.
involving members and pledges of Iota Septaton during the 2013-2014 academic year, and,
based on its findings, revoked its recognition Defendants Grand Council and Iota Septaton for a
period of six years. Upon information and belief, Penn State learned that its personnel had
observed and warned senior administrators at Penn State about Marquises psychological crises
as a result of the hazing shortly before his death, but Penn State kept this information secret from
the family, leaving them in the dark and exacerbating their suffering ever since his death.
Pennsylvanias Anti-Hazing Law
59.
60.
The anti-hazing law states that hazing includes, but is not limited to:
and
any activity which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as
sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which
could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could
adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual, or any willful
destruction or removal of public or private property.
62.
The anti-hazing law states that any activity constituting hazing upon which the
The anti-hazing law requires institutions of higher education, such as Penn State,
to adopt and enforce written policies prohibiting students or other persons associated with any
organization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization by the institution
from engaging in any activity which can be described as hazing. Upon information and belief,
Defendants Bish and Mosley were mandated to report suspected hazing to Penn State
administrators, who, along with Defendants Bish and Mosley, were mandated to take reasonable
action to prevent hazing and protect students from being hazed and the effects thereof.
Penn States Deceptive Statements
64.
Penn State publicly reports on its website and documentary material that it has
one of the largest Greek communities in North America. Penn State publicly states in such
materials that it prohibits hazing in accordance with express requirements of Pennsylvania law.
65.
Penn State states as fact only positive, promotional information to students and
families about Greek organizations, presumably for the purpose of convincing students to join
these organizations and become committed, valuable alumni.
17
66.
Penn States documentary material labels the actual and dangerous risks facing
students pledging fraternities as constituting myths, expressly stating to parents and students:
For many parents, the fraternity and sorority community reminds them of images
of the movie Animal House. There are many myths about the fraternity and
sorority community, but the reality is that men and women in fraternities and
sororities are committed to their academics, volunteer their time in the
community, develop and strengthen their leadership skills, and form a campus
network with other fraternity and sorority members.
67.
Statistics, insurance claims analyses, studies and reports, and widely known
incidents of catastrophic injury and death have for decades demonstrated the foreseeable risk of
dangerous injury and death from hazing. It is widely reported and well known among
universities and Greek organizations that at least one student has died in fraternity pledge
activities every year since 1970. Upon information and belief, Penn State has had numerous
incidents of dangerous hazing and misuse of alcohol in fraternities on its campus, and has chosen
to exclude this truthful information from its documentary materials.
68.
In the late 1980s, the Fraternity Information and Programming Group (FIPG), a
national organizations with 5500 chapters on 800 campuses throughout the United States and
Canada, analyzed certain risks associated with Greek organizations and housing and concluded
that improper fraternity oversight of alcohol was frighteningly pervasive. The NIC passed a
Resolution encouraging its member fraternities to pursue alcohol-free chapter facilities.
18
70.
Penn State had, at all times relevant hereto, access to and specialized knowledge
Despite such knowledge, Penn State advised students and parents that alleged
misconduct and related risks involving Greek organizations were myths. Despite such
knowledge, Penn State chose not to timely and accurately report any information about the
incidents of hazing, risk management violations and other fraternity misconduct.
72.
Penn States statements about fraternities and the services they and the university
provide regarding hazing, alcohol abuse, risks, and the safety of students seeking to join them are
unfair and deceptive, as those phrases are defined in the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law. Penn States fails to disclose any, let alone accurate, information
about the serious risks students face when joining Greek organizations from hazing, alcohol
abuse and other prevalent, dangerous misconduct.
COUNT I
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendant Penn State
73.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
19
74.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvanias Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
75.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquis A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquis A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
76.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton operated under the sanction of and
Defendant Penn State retained significant authority and control over Defendants
Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton, up to and including but not limited to the ability to suspend or
to prohibit all of their operations and activities at Penn State Altoona.
79.
Defendant Penn State knew or should have known that members of Defendant
Iota Septaton would engage and did engage in hazing and that hazing intentionally and recklessly
inflicts emotional distress on all participants in hazing, including but not limited to persons
specifically targeted by hazing and persons required to otherwise participate in hazing.
80.
Defendant Penn State owed statutory and common law duties, including but not
limited to assumed duties, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging in
hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
81.
law, 24 P.S. 5351-5354, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging in
hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
20
82.
83.
At all relevant times, Marquise was within the class of persons intended to be
Defendant Penn State breached its statutory and common law duties by, among
other things:
a.
Failing to accurately state and warn students and families of the dangers of
b.
hazing;
d.
e.
hazing;
Septaton, its activities, and the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies against hazing;
f.
Failing to properly train its staff to recognize the dangers of hazing and
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Penn State, Marquise was subjected to intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress
resulting in extreme emotional distress and, ultimately, death by suicide.
86.
Defendant Penn State is jointly and severally liable for Marquises injuries and
death because it and/or its agents acting within the scope of their authority:
21
a.
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
87.
and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damages
in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT II
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendant Penn State
88.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
89.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvanias Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
90.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
91.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
22
92.
Defendant Penn State knew or should have known that Marquise was in a state of
emotional crisis and needed prompt medical attention to protect his emotional health and
physical safety.
93.
directly providing medical treatment to Marquise, advising Marquises parents about his hazing
and psychological crisis, or by warning Marquises parents of his need for attention and care.
94.
Defendant Penn State owed common law duties, including but not limited to
Defendant Penn State breached its duties by, among other things:
a.
b.
crisis, and warn them of his need for prompt attention and care.
96.
Had Marquises parents been told about the hazing and warned of Marquises
psychological crisis, they would have promptly obtained the medical attention that Marquise
desperately needed.
97.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Penn State, Marquise left campus in dangerous psychological distress and committed suicide.
Marquises damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost
earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
98.
Defendant Penn State is jointly and severally liable for Marquises injuries and
death because it and/or its agents acting within the scope of their authority:
a.
23
b.
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
99.
and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damages
in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT III
Survival Claim for Violation of
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
Against Defendant Penn State
100.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
101.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvanias Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
102.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
103.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
105.
Marquise was aware of and relied on Defendant Penn States deceptive statements
Had Defendant Penn State not made deceptive statements, either Marquise would
have chosen on his own initiative not to pledge or his parents would have affirmatively
prevented Marquise from pledging.
107.
Marquise was subjected to vicious hazing, suffered extreme psychological distress, and
committed suicide. Marquises damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and
suffering, lost earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Penn State, jointly and
severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) three times the
amount of actual damages, pursuant to 73 P.S. 201-9.2; (3) costs and reasonable attorneys
fees, pursuant to 73 P.S. 201-9.2; (4) equitable relief compelling Penn State to cease engaging
in unfair and deceptive acts or practices; and (5) any other and further relief that is just and
appropriate, including but not limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT IV
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Bish and Mosley
108.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
109.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Bish and Mosley pursuant to Pennsylvanias
Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
25
110.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
111.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
Defendants Bish and Mosley knew or should have known that members of
Defendant Iota Septaton subjected Marquise to hazing and forced him to watch hazing of others,
and that such conduct intentionally and recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Marquise.
113.
Defendants Bish and Mosley knew or should have known that Marquise was in a
state of emotional crisis and needed prompt medical attention to protect his emotional health and
physical safety.
114.
Defendants Bish and Mosley owed common law duties, including but not limited
to assumed duties, to intervene to protect Marquise from hazing and to protect his emotional
health and physical safety.
115.
Defendants Bish and Mosley breached their duties by, among other things:
a.
Defendant Iota Septaton notwithstanding the hazing and his state of emotional crisis;
b.
crisis to ensure he obtained the intervention and care he required and that they were
obligated to provide under the circumstances.
26
116.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
Bish and Mosley, Marquise was subjected to hazing resulting in severe and dangerous
psychological distress and, ultimately, his death by suicide. Marquises damages also include
but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost earnings, lost retirement and social
security income, and medical expenses.
117.
Defendants Bish and Mosley are jointly and severally liable for Marquises
b.
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Bish and Mosley, jointly
and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damages
in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT V
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton
118.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
27
119.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton pursuant to
Pennsylvanias Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate
thereunder.
120.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
121.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
which retains significant control over Defendant Iota Septaton though its Constitution, bylaws,
rules, policies, procedures, and monetary support. Defendant Grand Chapter also controls and
manages Defendant Iota Septaton through the use of consultants, staff, and alumni advisors.
123.
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton knew or should have known that
members of Defendant Iota Septaton would engage and did engage in hazing and that hazing
intentionally and recklessly inflicts emotional distress on all participants in hazing, including but
not limited to persons specifically targeted by hazing and persons required to watch hazing.
124.
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton owed statutory and common law
duties, including assumed duties, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging
in hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
125.
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton breached their duties by, among
other things:
28
a.
dangers of hazing;
b.
c.
e.
f.
activities, and the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies against hazing.
126.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton, Marquise was subjected to intentional and reckless infliction of
emotional distress resulting in extreme emotional distress and, ultimately, death by suicide.
Marquises damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost
earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
127.
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton are jointly and severally liable for
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
29
128.
b.
vicarious liability attaches even where an agent acts outside the scope of his agency.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota
Septaton, jointly and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000;
(2) punitive damages in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs
associated with this action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate,
including but not limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VI
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Traister and OConnor
129.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
130.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
30
132.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
Defendants Traister and OConnor knew or should have known that members of
Defendant Iota Septaton would engage and did engage in hazing and that hazing intentionally
and recklessly inflicts emotional distress on all participants in hazing, including but not limited
to persons specifically targeted by hazing and persons required to watch hazing.
134.
Defendants Traister and OConnor at all relevant times had sufficient authority
and control over pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton to prevent and protect pledges
and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
135.
Defendants Traister and OConnor owed statutory and common law duties,
including assumed duties, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging in
hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
136.
Defendants Traister and OConnor breached their duties by, among other things:
a.
dangers of hazing;
b.
c.
e.
f.
activities, and the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies against hazing.
31
137.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants
Traister and OConnor, Marquise was subjected to intentional and reckless infliction of
emotional distress resulting in extreme emotional distress and, ultimately, death by suicide.
Marquises damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost
earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
138.
Defendants Traister and OConnor are jointly and severally liable for Marquises
b.
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Traister and OConnor,
jointly and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive
damages in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated
with this action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not
limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VII
Survival Claim for Vicarious Liability
Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton
139.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
32
140.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton pursuant to
Pennsylvanias Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate
thereunder.
141.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
142.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton are vicariously liable for such
Defendants Traister and OConnor acted within the scope of their agency;
b.
which vicarious liability attaches even where an agent acts outside the scope of his
agency.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota
Septaton, jointly and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2)
33
punitive damages in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs
associated with this action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate,
including but not limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VIII
Survival Claim for Vicarious Liability
Against Defendant Penn State
146.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
147.
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvanias Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
148.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
149.
Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
At all relevant times, Defendants Bish and Mosley were agents of Defendant Penn
151.
State.
Defendant Penn State is vicariously liable for such tortious injury because, at all
relevant times:
a.
Defendants Bish and Mosley acted within the scope of their agency;
b.
34
c.
Defendants Bish and Mosley engaged in conduct that is of the type which
vicarious liability attaches even where an agent acts outside the scope of her agency.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Penn State, jointly and
severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damages in
the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT IX
Wrongful Death Claim Against All Defendants
153.
The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.
154.
Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf Marquises beneficiaries under the Wrongful
Death Act.
156.
Marquises beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act are Plaintiff, who is
Marquises natural father, and Marie-Yves Braham, who is Marquises natural mother.
157.
Marquises death was a direct and proximate result of the wrongful act or neglect
No action was brought, and no recovery was obtained, for Marquises injuries or
35
159.
This wrongful death claim and Marquises survival claims for injuries resulting in
Marquises death, including but not limited to damages for loss of support, loss of services,
medical expenses, funeral expenses, and expenses of administration necessitated by reason of
injuries causing death.
161.
have suffered the loss of services of Marquise A. Braham, loss of financial support and
contribution which Marquise A. Braham would have contributed in the future, and a loss of
support, companionship, comfort, guidance, solace, and society
162.
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for Marquises injuries and death
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as
follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) all costs associated with this
action; and (3) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
36
Respectfully submitted,
MARCIANO & MACAVOY, P.C.
By:
Kevin R. Marciano
Kevin R. Marciano, Esquire
Patrick D. MacAvoy, Esquire
ID Nos. 65901/209005
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16 W. Front Street
Media, PA 19063
(610) 566-6500
kmarciano@marcianolegal.com
pmacavoy@marcianolegal.com
37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 15th day of December, 2015, I electronically filed Plaintiffs
Complaint with the Prothonotary using the Philadelphia Courts Electronic Filing System which
will send notification of such filing to the below. Upon receipt of the notification, if the below is
not a registered e-filer a hard copy will be served via first class mail, postage pre-paid upon the
below:
39