Attacks against evidence of Champion’s consent could backfire in civil court

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reports that Christopher Chestnut, the attorney representing the parents of deceased FAMU drum major Robert Champion, claims the question of whether Champion consented to be hazed is immaterial. But Chestnut could have a hard time if he pushes that argument in a civil courtroom.

Juries in wrongful death civil cases consider what, if any, level of responsibility an alleged victim bears.

Back in 2001, 18-year old University of Miami student Chad Meredith died from drowning during a hazing ritual led by the campus’ Kappa Sigma Fraternity.

According to law firm that represented Meredith’s parents in a civil lawsuit against the fraternity, the jury ruled that Meredith was partially responsible for what took place.

“The Jury's verdict included an award of $7,000,000 for the mental pain and suffering for both Mr. and Mrs. Meredith as a result of the death of their son,” the Stewart, Tilghman, Fox, Bianchi & Cain law firm states on its website. “The total verdict was $14,000,000. The jury found the defendant, Travis Montgomery, the fraternity president, 45% at fault for what happened. The jury also found the defendant David May, the former fraternity vice president, 45% at fault. Finally, the jury found Chad Meredith, the decedent, 10% at fault.”

The ten percent responsibility percentage for Meredith took $1.4M away from the $14M ruling for a net total of $12.6M. His parents recovered that money from the insurance company of the fraternity.

The higher the level of responsibility of an alleged victim, the lower the amount of recovered money will be.

Robert and Pam Champion still claim that their son didn’t grant his consent to be hazed, which suggests that think his level of responsibility is zero.

“I know for a fact that my son was never violent or caused harm to anyone,” Pam Champion said. “We had coaches that wanted him to play football and were bribing him to play football. And he would not play football because he didn’t see any point of somebody stepping all over him and banging and hitting him. So Robert was not violent. He would never do any hazing. And for someone to actually say he would, I’m saying no.”

The Champion parents will have an uphill battle if they plan to convince a civil jury that all the eyewitness affidavits saying that their son gave his consent are untrue. They will have to answer why their son was on a bus that was the site of a criminal hazing activity. They will also need to explain how he came to be the only one of three “Crossing Bus C” pledges who was beaten against his will on Nov. 19. And then there’s the question of why he didn’t call the police before the “Crossing Bus C” ritual.

A case strategy based on denying all of the evidence of Champion’s consent to the illegal “Bus C” ritual could easily backfire in a civil courtroom. The outcome of the Meredith case shows that even a sympathetic jury is unlikely to just ignore evidence that shows an alleged victim bore partial responsibility.