Judge: Drunken rampage isn’t Endicott’s fault

A former Endicott College student who randomly attacked three classmates as part of a drunken escapade can’t sue the school for failing to protect him from himself, a Superior Court judge has ruled.

Dillon Destefano, who in 2014 pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury and one charge of assault and battery, sued Endicott earlier this year. He argued that the school effectively allowed underage drinking, and because of its negligence he was able to get so drunk that he was unable to “conform his actions to the requirements of the law.”

But Essex Superior Court Judge Salim Rodriguez Tabit tossed the suit last week.

“The court is aware of no case, and the parties have cited none, where a Massachusetts court has entertained a claim of negligent supervision where a plaintiff argues that the defendant has a duty to protect him from himself,” Tabit wrote. “Unlike every other meritorious negligent supervision claim where a plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by someone’s conduct, here, Destefano seeks to recover damages he himself caused.”

Destefano admitted that in early February 2014, he got extremely drunk at a dorm party and got in three separate fights that caused serious injuries. He was sentenced to four years in jail but was paroled last year.

In his suit against Endicott, Destefano’s attorneys argued, among other things, that the school should face social host liability — the theory that people or institutions that serve underage people alcohol should be punished. The school’s attorneys, however, said he “failed to plead any instance in which (Endicott) served him alcohol.”

“To call the violent felon’s claims in this case wholly untenable states the proposition too mildly,” wrote Robert B. Smith, an attorney for the college. “Indeed, his claims are patently absurd.”

Attorneys for Destefano did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Smith, who has represented universities for years, said the case could have set damning precedent if it were allowed to move forward.

“This would have opened the floodgates to litigation,” he said. “This would mean that a college would be responsible every time an underage student had too much to drink and hurt themselves or hurt someone else.”