This is the case of Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation , Inc. Here is the background and facts:

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.

Source-(Business Law: Text and Cases, 15th Edition

Clarkson/Miller)

Question:

Assume for the purposes of this question that there were two students who actively prompted the deceased to drink to excess, knew he was severely intoxicated and abandoned him while he was helpless. Based on the Illinois anti - hazing statute, could those two students face criminal prosecution?