Orzech v. FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A university was sued for negligence after an intoxicated student fell from his dorm window. The court held the university was immune from suit under the Charitable Immunity Act, finding the student was still a “beneficiary” of its educational works despite his and the university’s violations of its alcohol policy.
Legal Significance: A charitable organization’s simple negligence in performing its charitable works, or a plaintiff’s own contributory negligence, does not strip the plaintiff of their “beneficiary” status for purposes of the Charitable Immunity Act.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Keith Orzech, a 21-year-old student and resident advisor (RA) at Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU), hosted a party in his fourth-floor dormitory suite. The party involved underage drinking, grain alcohol, and drinking games, all in violation of FDU’s alcohol policy. Orzech became severely intoxicated, with a post-mortem blood alcohol content of 0.166%. Sometime after being helped to bed, he fell from his window and died. His estate sued FDU for wrongful death, alleging FDU was negligent in its alcohol policy and its failure to enforce it, particularly as its Public Safety department was allegedly lax. The trial court denied FDU’s claim of charitable immunity, reasoning that the mutual violations of the alcohol policy meant FDU was not performing its charitable works and Orzech was not a beneficiary at the time of the incident. A jury found FDU and Orzech equally negligent. FDU appealed the denial of immunity.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a university’s negligent enforcement of its alcohol policy, and a student’s concurrent violation of that policy, negate the student’s status as a beneficiary of the university’s educational works for purposes of immunity under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act?
Yes. The university’s negligent failure to enforce its alcohol policy and the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a university’s negligent enforcement of its alcohol policy, and a student’s concurrent violation of that policy, negate the student’s status as a beneficiary of the university’s educational works for purposes of immunity under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act?
Conclusion
This case solidifies that the charitable immunity analysis focuses on the claimant's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nos
Legal Rule
Under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7, a nonprofit educational Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
Legal Analysis
The court reversed the trial court, holding that FDU was entitled to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Du
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.