O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-61 (2019)

Hazing

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) ‘‘Haze’’ means to subject a student to an activity which endangers or is likely to endanger the physical health of a student, regardless of a student’s willingness to participate in such activity. (2) ‘‘School’’ means any school, college, or university in this state. (3) ‘‘School organization’’ means any club, society, fraternity, sorority, or a group living together which has students as its principal members. (4) ‘‘Student’’ means any person enrolled in a school in this state. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to haze any student in connection with or as a condition or precondition of gaining acceptance, membership, office, or other status in a school organization. (c) Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

History

Code 1981, § 16-5-61, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 694, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1690, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For comment, ‘‘ ‘Am I

My Brother’s Keeper?,’: Reforming Criminal Hazing Laws Based on Assumption of Care,’’ see 63 Emory L. J. 925 (2014).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Ministerial duty of school officials. - O.C.G.A. § 16-5-61 did not transform the discretionary policing functions of school officials into a ministerial duty to

enforce the hazing prohibition. Caldwell v. Griffin Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 232 Ga. App. 892, 503 S.E.2d 43 (1998).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Tort liability of college, university, fraternity, or sorority for injury or death of member or prospective member by hazing or initiation activity, 68 A.L.R.4th 228.

Validity, construction, and application of ‘‘hazing’’ statutes, 30 A.L.R.5th 683. Tort liability for hazing or initiation rituals associated with schools, colleges, or universities, 100 A.L.R.6th 365.

ARTICLE 5 CRUELTY TO CHILDREN

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1993–2013 · leading case: Pelham v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys., 743 S.E.2d 469 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pelham v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys., 743 S.E.2d 469 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “2 He asserted claims for negligence and negligence per se against the Board under a theory of respondeat superior, contending that Coach Hatcher’s instruction for the players to fight each other at the football practice violated Georgia’s anti-hazing law codified at OCGA §…”

Caldwell v. Griffin Spalding Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 503 S.E.2d 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “A school official does not have legal discretion to participate in a crime or to allow students under his supervision to commit a crime. OCGA §§ 16-2-20 and 16-2-21. Compliance with the law is mandatory, and in that sense arguably "ministerial.”

Red & Black Publ'g Co. v. Bd. of Regents, 427 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-5-61. In fact, the trial court found that one of the hazing charges in this case involved an alleged battery against a student which had been investigated by the local police.”

Jerome Pelham v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “4 at OCGA § 16-5-61. Pelham further asserted that the Board of Regents was liable for the negligent training and supervision of Coach Hatcher and other coaching staff.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.