More than two years after a rape allegedly took place at the Sigma Chi fraternity house, a Milwaukee judge dismissed the much-contested civil case against the fraternity.

Both the national and local chapters of Sigma Chi had filed motions claiming there was not sufficient evidence to convince a judge the plaintiff, who was a University of Wisconsin student at the time of the alleged rape, could convince a jury. Judge Timothy Dugan ruled in favor of both motions, effectively dismissing the case.

In the case, the Jane Doe said both the local and national chapters of the fraternity were negligent in looking after house guests, which lead to the rape she believes occurred on the premises early in the morning of Oct. 5, 2008.

The alleged negligence came in two areas: the rape occurred in the Sigma Chi house and a member of the fraternity knew she was intoxicated and allowed her to stay unattended in the private living areas of the house.

At a hearing on Feb. 4, Dugan said he looked at two previous cases as reference for the first point. In those cases, the question at hand was whether or not the owner of a property was responsible for the behavior of tenants of the property.

Dugan said in both of those cases the owners were not found to be negligent.

His main problem with the argument the fraternity did not provide appropriate safeguards for guests, Dugan said, is the alleged incident occurred in a private apartment, not an area used for fraternity functions.

“It is basically asking any member organization to be responsible for its members and their conduct away from the organization and the organization’s activities,” Dugan said in the hearing, according to court documents.

He added while a party hosted by the fraternity had been going on at the house earlier that day, it had ended by the time of the alleged rape. Because the official fraternity function was not related to the alleged incident, any lack of safeguards at the party was not related as well.

Elliot argued in previous disciplinary hearings the second floor of the house – including the living quarters – housed fraternity functions. In fact, he said, housing fraternity members is a fraternity function.

Dugan responded the entities that own the fraternity allow members to use portions of the house as common areas, but the individual residencies are not included in this group of spaces.

Doe’s other example of negligent behavior came when a fraternity member offered to walk her home due to her intoxication and when she refused allowed her to remain in the house with multiple fraternity alumni, Dugan said.

According to court records, these alumni were the last individuals Doe was seen with before being found by another member of the fraternity, though Marie Stanton, an attorney representing Sigma Chi, noted no legal action of any kind has been taken against them.

He said this individual did not display any negligence in allowing Doe to stay.

“These are two adults, and to say that he had a responsibility for an adult person opens the door that any time you go anywhere with anyone, you’re fully responsible for that individual even if that person says, ‘no, thank you, go away,'” Dugan said in the hearing.

Elliot argued the negligence did not occur when Doe refused the walk home, but rather when the fraternity member let her in the house and then instead of keeping track of her allowed her to be led in a private bedroom with the alumni.

“I think a fact finder could well determine that was a failure to exercise ordinary care to let her go in there rather than to either go in there or do something to see that she wasn’t assaulted,” Elliot said.

Stanton argued as an adult, Doe made the decision to walk in the room herself. She said the fraternity member had no responsibility to force Doe to allow him to walk her home.

The official order for summary judgment was filed Feb. 18.

On Feb. 22, Robert Elliot, Doe’s attorney, filed a motion to reconsider. In a brief filed March 3, attorneys for Sigma Chi encouraged the court to sign the motion for judgment and not consider Elliot’s motion.