After reading the case, you will write in your own words a summary of the case. You should take note of the basic facts of the case, the legal issue(s) that led the parties to court, the judge's decision, and the reasoning utilized to reach that decision.

Background and Facts David Bogenberger attended a pledge event at the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity house at Northern Illinois University (NIU). The NIU chapter officers planned an evening of hazing, during which the pledges were required to consume vodka provided by the members. By the end of the night, David's blood alcohol level was more than five times the legal limit. He lost consciousness. The chapter officers failed to seek medical attention. David died during the night. His father, Gary, filed a complaint in an Illinois state court against the NIU chapter and its officers, on a theory of negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants required the pledges, including David, to participate in the pledge event and to consume excessive and dangerous amounts of alcohol in violation of the state's hazing statute. The court dismissed the complaint. A state intermediate appellate court reversed the dismissal. The defendants appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. In the Language of the Court Justice FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Every person owes a duty of ordinary care to all others to guard against injuries which naturally flow as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of an act. Where an individual's course of action creates a foreseeable risk of injury, the individual has a duty to protect others from such injury. [Emphasis added.] To determine whether the NIU Chapter and officers owed a duty to the pledges, we look to the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant. In deciding reasonable foreseeability, an injury is not reasonably foreseeable where it results from freakish, bizarre, or fantastic circumstances. Regarding the first two factors, we cannot say that an injury resulting from hazing is freakish, bizarre, or occurs under fantastic circumstances. The existence of hazing statutes across the country, including the [national Pi Kappa Alpha organization's] written policy against hazing as well as Illinois's hazing statute, indicates that injury due to hazing is reasonably foreseeable. We also find that injuries resulting from hazing events, especially those involving the consumption of large amounts of alcohol, are likely to occur. When pledges are required to consume large quantities of alcohol in short periods of time, their risk of injury is greatnot only physical injury due to their inebriated condition but injury or death resulting from alcohol poisoning. (Emphasis added.] Regarding the last two factors, we find that the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury is small and the consequences of placing that burden on the NIU Chapter and officers are reasonable. To require the NIU Chapter and officers to guard against hazing injuries is infinitesimal. Hazing is not only against the law in Illinois, it is against the university's rules as well as the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity's rules. There can be no real burden to require the NIU Chapter and officers to comply with the law and the university's and fraternity's rules. And it seems quite reasonable to place that burden on the very people who are in charge of planning and carrying out the pledge event. We find that the NIU Chapter and the officers owed a duty to the pledges, including David, and plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for negligence against them. Decision and Remedy The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the intermediate appellate court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal. The plaintiff's "complaint may proceed against the NIU Chapter [and] its officers." Background and Facts David Bogenberger attended a pledge event at the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity house at Northern Illinois University (NIU). The NIU chapter officers planned an evening of hazing, during which the pledges were required to consume vodka provided by the members. By the end of the night, David's blood alcohol level was more than five times the legal limit. He lost consciousness. The chapter officers failed to seek medical attention. David died during the night. His father, Gary, filed a complaint in an Illinois state court against the NIU chapter and its officers, on a theory of negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants required the pledges, including David, to participate in the pledge event and to consume excessive and dangerous amounts of alcohol in violation of the state's hazing statute. The court dismissed the complaint. A state intermediate appellate court reversed the dismissal. The defendants appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. In the Language of the Court Justice FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Every person owes a duty of ordinary care to all others to guard against injuries which naturally flow as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of an act. Where an individual's course of action creates a foreseeable risk of injury, the individual has a duty to protect others from such injury. [Emphasis added.] To determine whether the NIU Chapter and officers owed a duty to the pledges, we look to the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant. In deciding reasonable foreseeability, an injury is not reasonably foreseeable where it results from freakish, bizarre, or fantastic circumstances. Regarding the first two factors, we cannot say that an injury resulting from hazing is freakish, bizarre, or occurs under fantastic circumstances. The existence of hazing statutes across the country, including the [national Pi Kappa Alpha organization's] written policy against hazing as well as Illinois's hazing statute, indicates that injury due to hazing is reasonably foreseeable. We also find that injuries resulting from hazing events, especially those involving the consumption of large amounts of alcohol, are likely to occur. When pledges are required to consume large quantities of alcohol in short periods of time, their risk of injury is greatnot only physical injury due to their inebriated condition but injury or death resulting from alcohol poisoning. (Emphasis added.] Regarding the last two factors, we find that the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury is small and the consequences of placing that burden on the NIU Chapter and officers are reasonable. To require the NIU Chapter and officers to guard against hazing injuries is infinitesimal. Hazing is not only against the law in Illinois, it is against the university's rules as well as the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity's rules. There can be no real burden to require the NIU Chapter and officers to comply with the law and the university's and fraternity's rules. And it seems quite reasonable to place that burden on the very people who are in charge of planning and carrying out the pledge event. We find that the NIU Chapter and the officers owed a duty to the pledges, including David, and plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for negligence against them. Decision and Remedy The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the intermediate appellate court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal. The plaintiff's "complaint may proceed against the NIU Chapter [and] its officers