Case Problem:
While he was a freshman at Auburn University, Jason Jones became a pledge at the Kappa Alpha (KA) fraternity. Over the next year, KA brothers hazed Jones in various ways, including (1) making him jump into a ditch filled with urine, feces, dinner leftovers, and vomit; (2) paddling his buttocks; (3) pushing and kicking him; (4) making him run a gauntlet in which he was pushed, hit, and kicked; and (5) making him attend 2:00 AM hazing meetings. Jones continued to participate in these and other hazing activities until he was suspended from Auburn for poor academic performance. Even though he knew that 20 to 40 percent of his pledge class had withdrawn from the pledge program, Jones kept participating because he wanted to become a full member of KA. Jones later sued the local and national KA organizations for, among other things, negligent hazing in violation of a state criminal statute that outlawed hazing. The defendants moved for summary judgment on Jones’s negligence per se claim. They contended that in view of the facts, Jones had assumed the risk of hazing. Were the defendants entitled to summary judgment?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.