Decision and Remedy The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the intermediate appellate court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal. Gary's complaint against the NIU Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha (and its officers) could proceed.In the Words of the Court justice FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. *=i==[==ic * * * Every person owes a duty of ordinary care to all others to guard against injuries which naturally ow as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of an act * * * . Where an individual's course of action creates a foreseeable risk ofinjuiy, the individual has a duty to protect others from such injury. [Emphasis added.] *DiCDklic To determine whether the MU Chapter and officers owed a duty to the pledges, we look to the reasonable foreseeability ofthe injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude ofthe burden ofguarding 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 lllinois's hazing statute, Case 5.2 Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc. Supreme Court of Illinois, 2018 IL 120951, 104 N.E.3d 1110 (2018). 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 fraternity's members. By the end of the night, Bogenberger's blood-alcohol level was more than five times the legal limit. He lost consciousness. The NIU Chapter officers failed to seek medical attention, and Bogenberger died during the night. Bogenberger's father, Gary, filed a complaint in an Illinois state court against the NIU Chapter of the fraternity and its officers, on a theory of negligence. Gary alleged that the defendants required the pledges -including his son, 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.l Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement. indicates that injury due to hazing is reasonably foreseeable. [Emphasis added] 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. 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 ofplanning 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