A jury verdict in favor of the estate of a student at Fairleigh Dickinson University was recently reversed by the New Jersey Appellate Division based upon the statutory protection granted under the state's Charitable Immunity Act. The tragic case arose from the all-too-common fact pattern of excessive alcohol consumption on campus. Keith Orzech, a twenty-one year old student and resident advisor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, accidentally fell from a fourth-floor dormitory window while in an intoxicated state and died from his injuries. In a point of irony, the plaintiff's position as a resident advisor obligated him to alert the school authorities to any violations of the school alcohol policy. By all indications in the court's opinion, plaintiff himself had directly violated many of the policy's prohibitions. Although it was the summer, plaintiff remained in his university-owned dormitory room in between semesters. During the course of a party in his dormitory suite, he became severely intoxicated. Although the accident was unwitnessed, he was found on the ground outside of the dormitory below his window the following morning.

His estate filed suit against the college based on several theories of negligence. The estate argued that the university's alcohol policy was both inadequate and not enforced as written. The argument was essentially that there should have been a blanket "no alcohol" policy applicable to the dormitory buildings. In addition, the estate argued that the school's public safety department was lax in its enforcement of restrictions against excessive intoxication, grain alcohol, and drinking games.

Prior to trial, the university made application with the court to dismiss the matter based on the Charitable Immunity Act. The Act grants immunity to an educational entity such as a university, if (a) it is engaged in its charitable/educational purpose at the time of the accident and (b) the claimant is a "beneficiary" of the charitable/educational purpose. The trial court concluded that the deceased was not a beneficiary of the educational experience at the time of this unfortunate occurrence. The court cited the school's failure to enforce its own alcohol policy and, to some extent, the decedent's own conduct.

At trial, the jury allocated liability equally between the deceased and the university. The university appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the verdict. The Appellate Division concluded that the university was entitled to immunity because as a dormitory resident, he was a "per se" beneficiary of the school's charitable/educational purpose. It also found that the decedent's own behavior in grossly violating the alcohol policy did not in any way impact upon whether he was a "beneficiary." The court stressed that the inquiry should not focus on the issue of fault, but rather, whether the institution is advancing its purposes and the claimant is benefiting "to any degree." Since the conduct of the university could not have amounted to more than simple negligence, the Appellate Division found that the claim fell within the contemplated protections of the Charitable Immunity Act.