East Lansing Fraternity Hazing Death: Michigan Law, Garrett’s Law, and the Civil Case After a Pledge Dies
If you are reading this page, someone you love did not come home from college. A young man walked into a fraternity house in East Lansing as a pledge and never walked out. The police were called at 1:58 in the morning. By the time they arrived, he was already gone. The autopsy said alcohol intoxication. The people who were supposed to be his future brothers had spent the night pouring drinks into him until he blacked out — because that was the ritual. That was the point.
You are in the worst moment a family can face, and you are probably being told things that are not true: that it was an accident, that he chose to drink, that no one could have seen this coming. We are here to tell you what the law actually says — in Michigan, in East Lansing, in Ingham County — and what it lets a family do when a fraternity turns a pledge night into a death sentence.
This page is not a brochure. It is the work product of a trial team that handles hazing wrongful death cases. We are going to tell you exactly what Michigan’s anti-hazing law does, what the civil wrongful death statute allows, who can be held accountable, what the evidence looks like, what it is worth, and what to do in the first days — because the evidence in a hazing case dies faster than most families realize, and the people who killed your loved one are already working to protect themselves.
What Happened at Pi Alpha Phi: The Night a Pledge Died
On November 19, 2021, four pledges — including a young man named Phat Nguyen, an MSU business student — attended what the fraternity called a “welcome party” in the basement of the Pi Alpha Phi fraternity house in East Lansing. The stated goal of the evening was to get the pledges drunk enough that they would blackout — to “die” and be reborn as brothers of the fraternity. This was not a party that got out of hand. This was a ritual with a name and a purpose, and the purpose was to push a human body past the point where the body could protect itself.
At 1:58 a.m. on November 20, the police were called to the fraternity house. Phat Nguyen was pronounced dead at the scene. The surviving pledges were transported to Sparrow Hospital — the primary Level I trauma center serving the greater Lansing metropolitan area. Witnesses later described what police found: at least three of the pledges had been unconscious, stripped down to their shorts, with profane writing on their backs. An autopsy report confirmed the cause of death as alcohol intoxication.
“It was hazing. He was hazed to death and that is the truth.”
That is what a witness said. Not a lawyer. Not an advocate. Someone who was there and saw what happened and called it what it was.
Pi Alpha Phi has since been disbanded on MSU’s campus for a minimum of ten years. Criminal charges were filed under Michigan’s anti-hazing statute — known as Garrett’s Law — marking the first time the law’s most serious charge had been used in prosecution since the statute was passed in 2004. The civil wrongful death lawsuit was filed in June 2023, within the applicable limitations period. And the constitutional challenge to Garrett’s Law is now before the Michigan Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on August 6, 2025, and has not yet reached a decision.
That is the public record. Now let us tell you what it means — and what it does not.
Michigan’s Garrett’s Law: The Criminal Hazing Statute Explained
Michigan’s anti-hazing law — Garrett’s Law, enacted in 2004 — defines hazing with a precision that matters to both the criminal prosecution and your civil case:
“An intentional, knowing, or reckless act by a person acting alone or acting with others that is directed against an individual and that the person knew or should have known endangers the physical health or safety of the individual, and that is done for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization.”
Read that definition again, because every word of it was written for exactly this kind of night. The act does not have to be intentional — it can be “reckless.” The person does not have to have actually known the danger — they should have known. And the purpose does not have to be malicious — it only has to be “for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization.”
A felony hazing count resulting in death can carry up to 15 years of imprisonment. That is the criminal side. But Garrett’s Law is not just a criminal statute — it is also a framework for civil liability. When a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a class of people, and a member of that class is harmed by the violation, Michigan law allows that statutory violation to serve as powerful evidence of negligence — and in many cases, as negligence per se. The hazing statute was written to protect pledges. Your loved one was a pledge. The violation of the statute is the breach of duty.
The criminal prosecution provides a parallel evidentiary engine for the civil case. Witness testimony, grand jury transcripts where available, and findings from the criminal case can be leveraged in civil discovery through depositions and evidence sharing. The criminal case does not have to result in a conviction for the civil case to succeed — but every conviction, every guilty plea, every piece of sworn testimony from the criminal proceeding becomes a weapon in the civil courtroom.
The Constitutional Challenge: Why the Criminal Appeal Does NOT Stop Your Civil Case
The defense attorney for one of the charged individuals has argued that Garrett’s Law is unconstitutional — citing a lack of sufficient evidence and claiming that the statute is confusing because this is the first time it has been interpreted by a court. The Michigan Court of Appeals heard these arguments on August 6, 2025, and has not yet reached a decision. It has not been decided whether the opinion will be published or unpublished — a published opinion would set precedent for future cases across the state.
Here is what the family needs to understand, and what the defense is counting on the family not understanding: the constitutional challenge to Garrett’s Law is a criminal defense argument. It does not control your civil wrongful death case.
Your civil case stands on independent tort principles — negligence, negligent supervision, premises liability, social host liability, and wrongful death. These are common-law doctrines that existed long before Garrett’s Law was enacted and will exist regardless of what the Court of Appeals decides about the criminal statute. Even if the appellate court were to strike down Garrett’s Law entirely — which is by no means guaranteed — the civil lawsuit would proceed on these independent grounds. The fraternity members who organized the hazing event owed a duty of reasonable care to the pledges in that basement. They breached that duty by intentionally intoxicating them to the point of blackout. That breach caused a death. Those are common-law elements that do not depend on any statute’s constitutionality.
The constitutional challenge is frustrating and delay-inducing — that is its purpose. But it does not diminish the strength of the civil wrongful death case. The documented evidence — the autopsy, the witness statements, the criminal prosecution’s findings — provides an unusually strong evidentiary foundation for civil recovery. The delay is a tactic, not a defense.
Who Can Be Held Liable: The Full Defendant Stack in a Fraternity Hazing Death
A fraternity hazing death is never the act of one person. It is the product of a system — a local chapter that organized the event, a national organization that was supposed to prevent it, a university that was supposed to enforce its own policies, and a property owner whose building hosted the danger. Each of these is a separate defendant with a separate insurance profile, and identifying every one of them is the difference between a partial recovery and a full one.
The Pi Alpha Phi local chapter (MSU) — The direct organizer of the hazing event. The pledges were intentionally intoxicated to blackout levels under a chapter-sanctioned ritual. The chapter has since been disbanded for a minimum of ten years, which means its infrastructure is dissolving — its communications, its member lists, its internal records are at risk of being lost as members scatter and the organization ceases to function. This is the most directly liable defendant, but it may also be the least collectible. A disbanded local chapter often has minimal assets and limited insurance.
The Pi Alpha Phi national organization — This is where the real money often lives, and where the oversight failures become the civil case. National fraternity organizations owe duties to supervise their chapters, to monitor chapter operations, to enforce anti-hazing policies, and to prevent the traditions of hazing that they know — or should know — exist across their affiliated chapters. If the national organization had knowledge or constructive notice of hazing traditions at this chapter or at similar chapters, and failed to take effective corrective action, that failure is negligent supervision. The national organization typically carries significantly larger insurance coverage than the local chapter, making it the primary target for a recovery that can actually fund a family’s loss.
Individual fraternity members — Those who participated in the hazing conduct face both criminal charges under Garrett’s Law and civil liability for the death. Criminal charges have been filed against multiple individuals, with seven additional individuals charged in 2024. Individual members likely have limited personal assets and may carry only standard renters’ or personal liability insurance, which constrains realistic recovery against them. But their testimony — locked in during depositions — is what builds the case against the deeper-pocket defendants.
Michigan State University — The university has an official hazing policy that explicitly prohibits hazing and references Garrett’s Law. This policy establishes an institutional standard of care that can be compared against the university’s actual enforcement practices. If MSU had knowledge of hazing practices in Pi Alpha Phi — through prior complaints, disciplinary records, or awareness of Greek life culture risks — and failed to take effective corrective action, the university may face institutional liability for negligent supervision and failure to enforce its own policies. Federal law, including the Stop Campus Hazing Act, imposes reporting and prevention obligations on universities receiving federal funding, requiring institutional transparency about hazing incidents. A university that was aware of hazing risks in its Greek life community and failed to act on that awareness has a gap between its stated policy and its actual practice — and that gap is where institutional liability lives.
The fraternity house property owner or LLC — Property owners and operators who knowingly permitted or facilitated hazing activities on premises under their control owe a duty of reasonable care to entrants, particularly pledges in a dependent position. If the property owner knew or should have known that dangerous hazing activities were occurring in the basement of the fraternity house, premises liability may apply. Michigan’s liquor control laws also prohibit furnishing alcohol to minors, creating potential statutory liability for those who supplied or made alcohol available at the event — many of the pledges were likely underage.
Each of these defendants points at the others. The local chapter says it was following national tradition. The national organization says it did not know what the local chapter was doing. The university says it cannot police every fraternity house. The property owner says the fraternity was responsible for what happened inside. The truth is that all of them failed, and the law allows a family to hold all of them accountable — through theories of negligent supervision, premises liability, social host liability, and civil conspiracy or concerted action, where multiple fraternity members acted in concert to carry out the hazing ritual.
Michigan Wrongful Death Law: The Three-Year Clock, the Damages, and the Standard
Michigan’s wrongful death statute provides the civil remedy for death caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default. The hazing conduct directly and proximately caused the alcohol intoxication death, and the statute gives the family the right to pursue compensation.
The clock. Michigan generally requires a wrongful death claim to be filed within three years of the date of death. In this case, the date of death was November 20, 2021, and the civil lawsuit was filed in June 2023 — well within the applicable limitations period. But the clock is not the only deadline that matters. The evidence clock runs faster than the legal clock, and a family that waits until the limitations period is nearly expired may find that the proof they need has already been legally destroyed.
Comparative fault. Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar — meaning that if the injured party is found to be 51% or more at fault, recovery is barred entirely. But in hazing cases, the victim’s participation is generally analyzed as foreseeability of harm to a vulnerable pledge, not as contributory negligence. A pledge who drinks under the pressure of a hazing ritual is not making a free and informed choice — he is in a position of dependency, under social coercion, surrounded by people who control the alcohol supply and who know, or should know, that the amount they are providing is dangerous. The defense will try to pin percentage points on the victim. Every point is money. But the law recognizes that a pledge’s “choice” to participate in a hazing ritual is not the same as an adult’s informed decision to drink, and the foreseeability of harm to a vulnerable pledge is the lens through which the analysis runs.
Exemplary damages. Michigan permits exemplary damages for willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The deliberate, reckless nature of this hazing strongly supports an exemplary damages claim. The pledges were intentionally intoxicated to the point of blackout with the stated goal of causing them to “die.” At least three were found unconscious and stripped with profane writing on their bodies. This is not negligence. This is willful and wanton conduct — the exact standard Michigan law uses to open the door to exemplary damages. The criminal prosecution, the witness statements, and the documented pattern of conduct all provide substantial evidentiary support.
The damages categories. A full wrongful death claim in a hazing case counts:
Economic damages — funeral and burial expenses, loss of future financial support and earning capacity based on the young man’s trajectory as an MSU business student, and any medical expenses incurred at Sparrow Hospital prior to pronouncement. A forensic economist projects the lifetime earning stream using worklife expectancy tables and reduces it to present value — the same methodology used in every serious wrongful death case.
Non-economic damages — loss of society, companionship, guidance, and emotional support for the family. These are the human losses no receipt can measure, and Michigan law allows a jury to compensate them.
Conscious pain and suffering — what the young man experienced during the period of extreme intoxication before death. Forensic pathology and toxicology evidence can establish the duration and severity of his physical distress. Alcohol intoxication death is not instantaneous — the body progresses through escalating levels of impairment, from confusion to stupor to coma to respiratory depression, and the period of conscious suffering before death is compensable.
Exemplary damages — punishment for willful and wanton conduct, available under Michigan law when the defendant’s actions show a reckless disregard for the safety of others. The deliberate intoxication of pledges to blackout, the stripping and degradation, and the ritualistic nature of the conduct all support this claim.
The Evidence Clock: What Records Exist and How Fast They Disappear
This is the section that decides whether a family wins or loses. The evidence in a hazing death case is perishable — some of it is already dissolving — and the people who hold it are the same people who are defending against the lawsuit. Every record below exists right now. The question is whether anyone demands it before it is legally destroyed.
Autopsy and toxicology reports. Already completed by the medical examiner. These prove the cause of death (alcohol intoxication) and establish the blood alcohol concentration at the time of death. They must be formally obtained and authenticated for the civil case. These are stable — the medical examiner’s file is retained on a long schedule. But the family must request it through proper channels.
Witness statements from pledges and fraternity members. These establish the hazing conduct, the intent, the organizational culture, and the pattern of behavior. This is the most volatile evidence in the case. Witness memory degrades. Witnesses may be coached by defense counsel. They may relocate, graduate, or become unavailable. Criminal case testimony may differ from civil discovery responses. Every day that passes without a recorded statement is a day the defense has to shape what witnesses remember — or what they say they remember. A preservation letter and early depositions lock testimony before it shifts.
Fraternity communications — text messages, group chats, social media posts. These show the planning, the organizational knowledge of hazing practices, and the post-incident communications. This is the single most critical and most fragile evidence category. Messaging platforms purge data on retention cycles. Devices may be lost, replaced, or wiped. The disbanded chapter’s infrastructure is dissolving — group chats are being deleted, social media accounts are being taken down, and the digital trail of who organized what and who knew what is disappearing in real time. A litigation hold letter demanding preservation of all electronic communications must go out immediately — to every individual member, to the local chapter, and to the national organization.
University disciplinary records and prior hazing complaints involving Pi Alpha Phi. These establish institutional notice of hazing culture and failure to take corrective action. They must be requested through FOIA and discovery before records retention schedules purge them. Institutional personnel turnover may eliminate institutional memory — the administrator who knew about prior complaints may have left. The records retention clock at a university is not your friend; a preservation demand and a FOIA request must go out in the first weeks.
Pi Alpha Phi national organization oversight records, chapter inspection reports, and prior incident history. These show the national organization’s knowledge of hazing traditions, oversight failures, and failure to enforce anti-hazing policies. This is where the case against the deep-pocket defendant is built. But organizational records may be reorganized, archived, or destroyed following chapter disbandment. The national organization may argue that the disbanded chapter’s records are no longer its responsibility. A preservation letter to the national organization must demand all records relating to the MSU chapter — including inspection reports, prior incident reports, correspondence with chapter officers, and any hazing-related complaints or investigations.
Police reports, body camera footage, and crime scene documentation from the November 20, 2021 response. These document the scene conditions, spontaneous statements at the scene, and physical evidence including the profane writing on the pledges’ bodies. Already collected by law enforcement, but they must be obtained before statutory retention periods expire. Body camera footage retention varies by agency policy — some agencies purge after a defined period unless a specific hold is in place. The footage of what police found when they walked into that basement is evidence that cannot be recreated.
Medical records from Sparrow Hospital for surviving pledges. These document the condition of the other pledges, their blood alcohol levels, and the treatment provided. They corroborate the hazing pattern — multiple pledges in the same state of extreme intoxication is not coincidence; it is evidence of a systematic, deliberate process. These records are subject to medical record retention limits and require HIPAA authorization from the surviving pledges or a discovery subpoena.
The master move: a preservation and spoliation letter must go out to every potential defendant and every third-party record holder — the local chapter, the national organization, the university, the property owner, and every individual member who can be identified — within days, not months. Once the disbanded chapter’s digital infrastructure dissolves and its members scatter, the records that prove who organized the hazing, who purchased the alcohol, who wrote on the pledges’ bodies, and who knew what was happening are gone — and gone permanently.
The Medicine of Alcohol Intoxication Death: What the Autopsy Proves
The autopsy confirmed the cause of death as alcohol intoxication. Here is what that means in the language a jury needs to hear — and what the defense does not want a jury to understand.
Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. As blood alcohol concentration rises, it progressively suppresses brain function — beginning with the cerebral cortex (loss of judgment, inhibition, coordination), then the limbic system (emotional instability, memory impairment), then the cerebellum (balance and coordination failure), and finally the brainstem. The brainstem controls breathing. When alcohol suppresses the brainstem’s respiratory center, breathing slows, becomes shallow, and can stop entirely. This is the mechanism of death in acute alcohol intoxication — not a “heart attack” or “choking,” but the slow, progressive shutdown of the brain’s drive to breathe.
The progression is not instantaneous. Before the respiratory drive fails, the victim passes through stages of visible impairment — confusion, stupor, coma — during which someone watching could have intervened. Could have called 911. Could have stopped pouring drinks. The fraternity members in that basement did not intervene. They continued the ritual. The young man’s body was shutting down in front of them, and the ritual continued.
The toxicology report establishes the blood alcohol concentration at the time of death. A forensic toxicologist can reconstruct the rate of consumption — how many drinks, over what period, would produce that concentration — and can testify that the amount provided was dangerous, that the rate of consumption was dangerous, and that any person with basic knowledge of alcohol’s effects should have known the pledges were in mortal danger. The defense will argue that the victim “chose” to drink. The toxicology answers that: no one freely chooses to consume a lethal quantity of alcohol. The quantity was provided, the pressure was applied, and the environment was controlled by the people who organized the ritual.
The surviving pledges’ medical records from Sparrow Hospital corroborate the pattern. Multiple pledges arriving at a Level I trauma center in states of extreme intoxication — unconscious, stripped, with physical signs of degradation — is not a coincidence. It is evidence of a systematic, deliberate process that produced the same result in every participant. The one who died was not the exception. He was the one whose body reached the lethal threshold first.
What a Hazing Death Case Is Worth: Honest Numbers, Real Obstacles
The wrongful death of a young college student with documented hazing, a parallel criminal prosecution, and egregious conduct supports a significant verdict. Based on the documented severity of the conduct, the witness statements, the autopsy findings, and the parallel criminal prosecution creating strong liability clarity, the case value range runs from approximately $3,000,000 on the low end to $15,000,000 or more on the high end.
The low end assumes recovery against individual fraternity members and the disbanded local chapter, both of which likely have limited collectibility. The high end depends on successfully pursuing the national fraternity organization and the university — defendants with deeper pockets and larger insurance towers. A young MSU business student had decades of projected earning capacity ahead of him, and a forensic economist can quantify that loss in the millions. Add the non-economic losses — the loss of society, companionship, and guidance — and the exemplary damages available for willful and wanton conduct, and the upper range is where a jury that hears the full story can land.
But honesty requires acknowledging the obstacles. Individual fraternity members likely have limited assets and minimal insurance. The disbanded local chapter is dissolving. The national organization will argue it did not control the local chapter’s day-to-day operations. The university will argue it cannot police every fraternity house and that its anti-hazing policy was adequate on paper. The property owner may argue it had no knowledge of the hazing. Each of these defenses has an answer, but each answer requires evidence — and the evidence is perishable.
The path to the upper range runs through the national fraternity organization’s oversight records and the university’s disciplinary files. If discovery reveals that the national organization had prior notice of hazing at this chapter or at similar chapters and failed to act, the case against the national organization strengthens dramatically. If discovery reveals that the university had prior complaints about Pi Alpha Phi and failed to enforce its own anti-hazing policy, the institutional liability claim gains traction. These are the records that must be demanded before they are purged — and the demand must go out now.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the facts of this case — a deliberate hazing ritual, a documented cause of death, surviving witnesses, a parallel criminal prosecution, and a national organization with oversight duties — are the raw material of a case that can be built into something significant.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Do and How We Counter
The insurance industry has a playbook for wrongful death cases, and Lupe Peña — our associate attorney — knows it from the inside. He spent years at a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. Now he sits on the other side of the table. Here are the plays the defense will run, and here is how each one is countered.
Play 1: The “he chose to drink” comparative fault argument. The adjuster will frame the victim as a willing participant who voluntarily consumed the alcohol. The goal is to pin percentage points of fault on the deceased, reducing the recovery under Michigan’s modified comparative negligence rule. The counter: a pledge in a hazing ritual is not making a free and informed choice. He is in a position of dependency, under social coercion, surrounded by people who control the alcohol supply and who know — or should know — that the amount they are providing is dangerous. The foreseeability of harm to a vulnerable pledge, not the victim’s “choice,” is the legal lens. Every drink poured was a choice made by the fraternity members, not the pledge.
Play 2: The fast settlement check with a release buried under it. Within weeks or months, someone friendly may approach the family with a settlement offer — a check that looks meaningful but is a fraction of the case’s value, accompanied by a release that waives the right to sue anyone, including the defendants the family has not yet identified. The goal is to close the case before the family understands who is really liable and what the case is really worth. The counter: no check is signed before the full defendant stack is identified, the insurance coverage is traced, and the evidence is preserved. A settlement that resolves the claim against the local chapter but releases the national organization and the university is a settlement that pays pennies on the dollar and leaves the deep pockets untouched.
Play 3: The recorded statement request. Someone — an insurance adjuster, a defense investigator, or even a fraternity member’s attorney — may ask a family member to “just tell us what happened” on a recording. That recording is built to be quoted against the family later. The counter: no family member gives a recorded statement without their own counsel present and without understanding every question’s purpose. The only statement that matters is the one given to law enforcement, and even that should be reviewed with counsel before any civil discovery follows.
Play 4: The delay aimed at the evidence clock. The defense will file motions, request extensions, and use every procedural tool to slow the case — not because they have a strong defense, but because time is on their side. Every month of delay is a month closer to the evidence being lost — the fraternity communications purged, the witnesses relocated, the disbanded chapter’s records destroyed. The counter: the preservation letter goes out the day the family calls. The discovery demands are aggressive and early. The depositions are scheduled before witnesses have time to forget, be coached, or move away. Speed is the family’s weapon, and the defense knows it.
Play 5: The “national organization didn’t know” defense. The national fraternity organization will argue it had no knowledge of the local chapter’s hazing practices and therefore cannot be held liable for negligent supervision. The counter: discovery targets the national organization’s oversight records — chapter inspection reports, prior incident history, correspondence with chapter officers, and any hazing-related complaints or investigations at any chapter. If the national organization had constructive notice of hazing traditions across its affiliated chapters and failed to enforce its own anti-hazing policies, the “we didn’t know” defense collapses under the weight of its own records.
How a Hazing Wrongful Death Case Is Actually Built
Here is how a case like this is actually won — week by week, record by record, deposition by deposition.
Week one. The preservation and spoliation letter goes out — to the local chapter, the national organization, the university, the property owner, and every identifiable individual member. The letter demands preservation of all electronic communications, all fraternity records, all university disciplinary files, all police body camera footage, and all medical records. The day that letter is received, the legal obligation to preserve evidence attaches. If records are destroyed after that date, the jury can be told to assume the lost records contained the worst evidence — an adverse inference instruction that can decide a case.
Weeks two through four. The autopsy and toxicology reports are formally obtained and authenticated. The police reports and body camera footage are requested from the East Lansing Police Department and any other responding agencies. FOIA requests go to Michigan State University for all disciplinary records, prior hazing complaints, and communications relating to Pi Alpha Phi. The civil complaint is filed or amended to name every identified defendant, including the national organization and the university.
Months one through three. Discovery opens. The first demands target fraternity internal communications — text messages, group chats, social media posts — and the national organization’s oversight records. Expert witnesses are retained: a forensic toxicologist to establish the lethal blood alcohol level and the mechanism of death, a Greek life culture and hazing expert to explain the national fraternity’s knowledge of hazing risks and the industry standards for prevention, and a forensic economist to quantify the loss of future earnings.
Months three through six. Depositions begin. The individual fraternity members are deposed under oath — their testimony locked in before it can shift. The national organization’s representatives are deposed on their oversight practices, their knowledge of hazing at this chapter, and their enforcement of anti-hazing policies. University administrators are deposed on the university’s awareness of Greek life hazing risks, its enforcement of its own anti-hazing policy, and any prior complaints about Pi Alpha Phi. Every deposition is a chance to lock in testimony that the defense cannot later change.
Months six through twelve. The case is built toward mediation or trial. The parallel criminal prosecution provides a powerful evidentiary engine — witness testimony, grand jury transcripts where available, and findings from the criminal case can be leveraged in civil discovery. The forensic toxicologist’s report establishes the lethal BAC and the mechanism of death. The Greek life culture expert’s report establishes the national organization’s knowledge and the standard of care it violated. The forensic economist’s report quantifies the loss of future earnings. The life-care plan, if applicable, quantifies the cost of any surviving pledges’ ongoing medical needs.
Mediation should be approached only after key depositions have established individual liability and national organization oversight failures — maximizing settlement leverage against the deeper-pocket defendants. Going to mediation too early, before the evidence is locked in, is a gift to the defense.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do, What Not to Do, What Not to Sign
If your family is in the first days after a hazing death, here is the practical roadmap.
Do this. Request the autopsy and toxicology reports from the Ingham County Medical Examiner. Request the police reports and any body camera footage from the East Lansing Police Department. File a FOIA request with Michigan State University for all disciplinary records and prior hazing complaints involving the fraternity. Identify and preserve every piece of digital evidence — screenshots of social media posts, text messages from your loved one’s phone, any communications from fraternity members. Document everything — names, dates, what was said, who said it.
Do not do this. Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance adjuster, defense investigator, or attorney representing any fraternity member or the fraternity organization. Do not sign any document — especially a release or settlement agreement — without having it reviewed by your own counsel. Do not post about the case on social media — anything you say can be used against you. Do not communicate directly with any fraternity member, the national organization, or the university’s legal representatives without your attorney present.
Do not wait. The evidence in this case is dissolving. The fraternity has been disbanded, which means its infrastructure is collapsing — group chats are being deleted, social media accounts are being taken down, members are scattering, and the digital trail that proves who organized the hazing is disappearing. The preservation letter that freezes those records has to go out in days, not months. The day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
The personal representative. Before any wrongful death lawsuit is filed, a court must appoint a personal representative — the one person Michigan law authorizes to bring the family’s case. We handle that appointment. It is the first procedural step, and it must be done correctly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the fraternity if my son died during hazing?
Yes. Michigan law allows a family to file a wrongful death lawsuit against every party whose negligence or willful conduct caused the death — the local chapter, the national fraternity organization, the individual members who participated, the university if it failed to enforce its own anti-hazing policies, and the property owner if the hazing occurred on premises under its control. The civil case is separate from the criminal prosecution and does not depend on a criminal conviction.
How long do I have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Michigan?
Michigan’s wrongful death statute generally requires a claim to be filed within three years of the date of death. In this case, the date of death was November 20, 2021, and the civil lawsuit was filed in June 2023 — within the applicable period. But the evidence clock runs faster than the legal clock. Waiting until the limitations period is nearly expired may mean the proof you need has already been legally destroyed.
What is Garrett’s Law and how does it affect my civil case?
Garrett’s Law is Michigan’s anti-hazing statute, enacted in 2004. It defines hazing as intentional, knowing, or reckless acts that endanger physical health or safety, done for the purpose of pledging or initiation into an organization. A felony hazing count resulting in death can carry up to 15 years of imprisonment. In a civil case, the violation of the statute serves as powerful evidence of negligence — and in many cases, as negligence per se — because the statute was written to protect pledges, and your loved one was a pledge harmed by the violation.
Does the constitutional challenge to Garrett’s Law affect my family’s civil lawsuit?
No. The constitutional challenge is a criminal defense argument. Your civil wrongful death case stands on independent tort principles — negligence, negligent supervision, premises liability, and wrongful death — that exist regardless of whether the criminal statute is upheld or struck down. The delay caused by the criminal appeal is frustrating, but it does not diminish the strength of the civil case.
Can Michigan State University be held responsible for fraternity hazing?
Potentially, yes. MSU has an official hazing policy that explicitly prohibits hazing and references Garrett’s Law. If the university had knowledge of hazing practices in Pi Alpha Phi — through prior complaints, disciplinary records, or awareness of Greek life culture risks — and failed to take effective corrective action, it may face institutional liability. Federal law, including the Stop Campus Hazing Act, imposes reporting and prevention obligations on universities receiving federal funding.
What if my son “voluntarily” drank the alcohol — does that hurt the case?
The defense will try to make this argument, but the law recognizes that a pledge’s participation in a hazing ritual is not a free and informed choice. A pledge is in a position of dependency, under social coercion, surrounded by people who control the alcohol supply. Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar, but in hazing cases, the victim’s participation is generally analyzed as foreseeability of harm to a vulnerable pledge, not as contributory negligence. The people who organized the ritual, provided the alcohol, and controlled the environment are the ones whose choices caused the death.
How much is a fraternity hazing wrongful death case worth?
Based on the documented severity of the conduct, the witness statements, the autopsy findings, and the parallel criminal prosecution, the case value range runs from approximately $3,000,000 to $15,000,000 or more. The low end assumes recovery against individual members and the disbanded local chapter, both with limited collectibility. The high end depends on successfully pursuing the national fraternity organization and the university — defendants with deeper pockets. The actual value depends on the facts developed in discovery, the strength of the evidence preserved, and the collectibility of each defendant.
What evidence do we need to preserve right now?
The most critical and most perishable evidence includes: fraternity communications (text messages, group chats, social media posts), which are being deleted as the disbanded chapter’s infrastructure dissolves; witness statements from pledges and fraternity members, before memory degrades or witnesses are coached; university disciplinary records and prior hazing complaints, before records retention schedules purge them; national organization oversight records, before they are reorganized or destroyed following chapter disbandment; and police body camera footage from the November 20, 2021 response, before agency retention periods expire. A preservation letter demanding all of these records must go out immediately.
Can we sue the national fraternity organization, not just the local chapter?
Yes — and in many cases, the national organization is where the real recovery lives. The national fraternity owes duties to supervise its chapters, to monitor chapter operations, and to enforce anti-hazing policies. If the national organization had knowledge or constructive notice of hazing traditions at this chapter or at similar chapters and failed to take effective corrective action, that failure is negligent supervision. The national organization typically carries significantly larger insurance coverage than the local chapter.
What if the fraternity has already been disbanded?
The disbandment of the local chapter does not eliminate liability — but it does create urgency. The chapter’s infrastructure is dissolving, which means its records, communications, and member lists are at risk of being lost. A preservation letter to the national organization, the university, and every identifiable individual member must demand that all records relating to the disbanded chapter be preserved. The national organization’s liability does not disappear when the local chapter is disbanded — if anything, the disbandment is evidence that the conduct was serious enough to warrant the penalty, which supports the civil case.
Why This Firm: The Hazing Case We Are Litigating Right Now
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes Michigan cases, working with local counsel where required. We handle hazing wrongful death cases, and we are not reading about this subject for the first time.
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is the lead counsel in an active $10 million-plus hazing lawsuit — Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston — a fraternity hazing wrongful death case filed in Harris County, Texas, in November 2025. That case is live. It is not a settled matter or a closed file — it is a case this firm is actively litigating right now, against a national fraternity organization and a university, built on the same legal architecture that a Michigan hazing wrongful death case requires. Ralph’s background is in trial law — a journalist before he was a lawyer, a competitor who hates losing, and a man who has spent nearly three decades proving cases in front of juries.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney. He spent years inside a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, and how the quick settlement check arrives with a release printed on the back before the medical results do. Now he uses that knowledge for injured families. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The first consultation is free, and we are available 24/7 — not through an answering service, but through live staff. If we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you. But if we are, the preservation letter goes out the day you call, and the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
We serve families fully in English and in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The firm has recovered over $50 million in aggregate for injured clients, including a $5 million-plus brain-injury settlement, a $3.8 million-plus amputation settlement, and millions in trucking wrongful-death cases. Those results were earned on different facts, in different cases, against different defendants. What we bring from them to a hazing wrongful death case is the knowledge of how to build a case, how to preserve evidence before it disappears, and how to put a defendant’s choices in front of a jury.
If your family is facing the death of a loved one from fraternity hazing in East Lansing or anywhere in Michigan, call us. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. And the preservation letter goes out the same day.
1-888-ATTY-911.
Learn more about our wrongful death practice. Learn more about our hazing litigation practice. The evidence in your case is dying. The day you call is the day it stops.