BRUECKNER V. NORWICH UNIVERSITY 730 A.2d 1086 (1999) CASE BRIEF

BRUECKNER V. NORWICH UNIVERSITY

730 A.2d 1086 (1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: University (D) appealed an order that denied its post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial, following a jury verdict in favor of Brueckner (P) from incidents of hazing suffered by P, a student.

FACTS: P arrived as an incoming freshman, or 'rook,' at D. At the time, he was a twenty-four-year-old, five-year veteran of the United States Navy, having been awarded a four-year naval ROTC scholarship to attend D. Under the authority and training of Norwich and its leadership, certain upperclassmen were appointed by the university to indoctrinate and orient the incoming rooks, including P. These upperclassmen were known as the 'cadre.' P attended D for only sixteen days as a result of his subjection to, and observation of, numerous incidents of hazing. In those sixteen days, P withstood a regular barrage of obscene, offensive and harassing language. He was interrogated at meals and thereby prevented from eating. He was ordered to disrobe in front of a female student, although he did not follow the order. He was prevented from studying during some of the assigned study periods and, on several occasions, cadre members destroyed his academic work with water. Members of the cadre also forced him to squat in the hall as they squirted him with water. He was forced to participate in unauthorized calisthenic sessions, despite an injured shoulder. He was slammed into a wall by a cadre member riding a skateboard in the hall. After cadre members vandalized his room by dumping water in it, P was ordered to clean up the mess. On two occasions, P was prevented from attending mandatory ROTC study hall on time, leading him to believe his scholarship status was endangered. One morning, as P walked along the corridor in the dormitory, he encountered two cadre members, one of whom asked P where P's name tag was. When P responded that he had forgotten it, one cadre member hit P hard in the shoulder, which was injured and in a sling. After the other cadre member told the hitter to stop, the hitter struck P again in the same shoulder, causing pain and bruises. After reporting the hazing problems to D officials, P left the campus, believing that his situation would not improve. He returned briefly once more, then withdrew from P, his scholarship terminated. D investigated P's complaints and, as a result, several cadets were disciplined. P sued D for assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. The jury found D liable on all counts and awarded plaintiff $100,000 for emotional distress, $8,600 for medical expenses, $80,000 for the lost four-year college scholarship and $300,000 to cover lost earnings (past and future). The jury also awarded $1.75 million in punitive damages. The court denied D's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. D appeals.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner