Running Springs Fraternity Death: When “Unsanctioned” Means Liability, Not Absolution
If your family is reading this, you already know the worst part — a young person you loved is gone, and the institution that put him on that mountain is calling it an “unsanctioned event” as if that label somehow makes the death less their responsibility. It does not. It makes it more. We are the trial team at Attorney911, and we need you to understand something from the first sentence: “accidental” in a sheriff’s report and “unavoidable” in a courtroom are two completely different words. The first describes what happened. The second is what the fraternity wants you to believe. Our job is to prove the difference, and in California, the law gives us powerful tools to do exactly that — including Matt’s Law, the state’s hazing statute that strips away the “he consented” defense and lets a family hold a fraternity accountable even when the trip was supposedly off the books.
The death happened on a mountain — Running Springs, San Bernardino County, at roughly 6,000 feet along State Route 18, where the terrain drops off steeply and the cabins that students rent for fraternity weekends sit on properties with rocky outcroppings, uneven ground, and fall hazards that a city kid would never think to look for. A second-year UCSB student and Sigma Nu member fell, sustained severe blunt force trauma to his head, was transported down the mountain to Loma Linda University Medical Center, and survived for four days before dying on May 25, 2021. The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office ruled it an accident. The university suspended the chapter for a year — not for the death, but for holding an event during COVID-19 restrictions. And a family member has said publicly that the fraternity is “at least somewhat to blame” and that the official account does not match what really happened that night.
We believe the family. And we know how to find out what the sheriff’s report left out.
What Happened on That Mountain: The Running Springs Tragedy
Running Springs is a small mountain community in the San Bernardino range, sitting at about 6,000 feet along the highway locals call the Rim of the World. It is the primary gateway to Big Bear Lake, which means it is the first place university students stop when they drive up from the coast for a weekend cabin trip. The properties are a mix of permanent residences and seasonal rentals — cabins, A-frames, and vacation homes built into steep terrain with decks, stairs, retaining walls, and natural features that present fall hazards most students would never recognize. At night, especially, the risks multiply: poorly lit exterior areas, unpaved pathways, icy patches in the shoulder seasons, stairs without railings, and drop-offs that a group of young men coming back from a fraternity weekend would walk past without a second thought.
On May 21, 2021, a group of Sigma Nu members from the UCSB chapter was at one of these properties. What the university later called an “unsanctioned event” was, by the fraternity’s own informal naming, the annual “Big Bear trip” — a tradition that was known, repeated, and organized by the chapter’s members regardless of whether the national organization or the university formally approved it. That distinction — “unsanctioned” — is the most important word in this entire case, and we will explain exactly why it is the fraternity’s problem, not its shield.
The student fell. The fall caused severe blunt force trauma to his head. San Bernardino County fire responded and transported him to Loma Linda University Medical Center, a Level I trauma center roughly an hour down the mountain from Running Springs. He was alive when he arrived. He stayed alive for four days. He died on the evening of May 25, 2021. His death certificate listed blunt force trauma to the head as the cause.
The sheriff’s office said there was no homicide investigation because the death was “ruled an accident.” But a family member has publicly challenged that account, stating that the fraternity bears at least partial responsibility and that there was more to the investigation than the official statement acknowledged. That gap — between what the sheriff’s office said and what the family knows — is where a wrongful death case begins.
“Accidental” in a Police Report Doesn’t Mean “Unavoidable” in a Courtroom
Here is the first thing every grieving family needs to understand about a death that law enforcement has called an “accident”: that word means the sheriff’s office did not find evidence of an intentional killing. It does not mean the death was nobody’s fault. It does not mean it could not have been prevented. And it does not close the door on a civil lawsuit — not in California, and not anywhere in this country.
Law enforcement investigates crimes. A wrongful death lawyer investigates negligence. Those are two completely different inquiries with two completely different standards of proof. A sheriff’s deputy looking at a body at the bottom of a staircase asks one question: was this a crime? If the answer is no, the file closes. A wrongful death attorney looking at the same scene asks a different question: should this person have been on that staircase at all, and if not, whose decisions put him there?
In a fraternity death case, the answers to that second question are almost never in the sheriff’s report. They are in the Snapchat messages that were deleted the next morning. They are in the GroupMe thread where the trip was organized. They are in the text messages between fraternity brothers in the hours after the fall. They are in the university’s own disciplinary file. They are in the national fraternity’s risk management records, if anyone ever demanded to see them. And they are in the testimony of people who were there that night and have not yet been asked the right questions under oath.
The subpoena power of a civil lawsuit is the only tool that can force those records into the light. Law enforcement did not use it. The university did not use it — its investigation focused on COVID violations, not on the death. The fraternity certainly did not use it on itself. That leaves the family. And the family’s tool is the wrongful death lawsuit.
Why “Unsanctioned” Is the Fraternity’s Confession, Not Its Defense
The word “unsanctioned” is doing a lot of work for Sigma Nu right now, and none of it is honest. Here is what “unsanctioned” actually means in this context: the UCSB chapter organized and executed a trip that violated both the university’s COVID-19 prohibitions on in-person gatherings and the national fraternity’s own risk management guidelines. The university found the chapter “responsible” for that violation and sanctioned it accordingly. The national fraternity was notified. The chapter was suspended.
“The fraternity has been found responsible for holding an unsanctioned event during a time when in-person events were prohibited by the university, and it has been sanctioned accordingly.”
That is not a defense. That is an admission. The university’s own finding establishes that the chapter violated institutional policy. But the more important violation is the one the national fraternity has not publicly discussed — its own risk management standards.
National fraternities that belong to risk management organizations like the Fraternal Information and Programming Group (FIPG) are bound by guidelines that typically prohibit events involving high-risk environments, unauthorized alcohol use, and gatherings that have not been registered with or approved by the national organization. An “unsanctioned” mountain trip — organized by chapter members, involving a remote location with known fall hazards, and held in direct violation of both university and national policy — is not just a violation. It is the exact scenario the risk management guidelines were written to prevent.
The trial strategy here is straightforward, and it is one we have used in Greek life cases: we prove that the “Big Bear trip” was not a one-time mistake but a pattern. We use discovery to demand historical records — prior trip communications, prior disciplinary actions, prior risk management violations, internal emails between the national organization and the chapter. We show that the national fraternity and the chapter officers had constructive notice that this trip happened every year, that it was dangerous, and that nobody stopped it. “Unsanctioned” does not mean “we didn’t know.” It means “we knew and didn’t act.” In a negligence case, that is the ballgame.
California’s Matt’s Law: Hazing Liability and the End of the Consent Defense
California has a statute that was written specifically for situations like this. Matt’s Law — named for Matthew Carrington, a Chico State student who died in 2005 during a fraternity hazing incident — creates both criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for injuries and deaths resulting from hazing activities. Under California law, hazing is conduct that is likely to cause serious bodily danger or injury as a precondition to joining or maintaining membership in a fraternity, sorority, or other student organization.
The law addresses the specific defense that fraternities always raise in hazing cases: “he chose to participate.” Under Matt’s Law, the consent of the victim is not a defense. A young man who was pressured, coerced, or even simply expected to attend a fraternity trip as part of his membership or initiation cannot be told “you signed up for this” when the conduct that caused his death was hazing or a hazing-adjacent activity. The law strips away the one shield fraternities reach for first.
Whether the Running Springs trip qualifies as hazing depends on facts that only discovery can uncover — whether attendance was expected or required for membership status, whether the trip involved initiation rites, dares, challenges, or coerced behavior, and whether the student was subjected to pressure that a reasonable person would understand as a precondition to belonging. Those facts live in the digital communications, the witness statements, and the chapter’s internal records — all of which can be obtained through subpoena.
Even if the trip does not meet the legal definition of hazing, the civil cause of action for negligent supervision stands independently. The national fraternity owed a duty to monitor its chapter’s activities. The chapter officers owed a duty to protect their members from foreseeable harm. The property owner owed a duty to warn of or remediate dangerous conditions. Each of these is a separate theory of liability that does not depend on proving hazing — it depends on proving negligence, which is a lower bar.
You can read more about our fraternity and sorority hazing litigation practice and the active hazing lawsuit we are currently litigating — a $10 million case that demonstrates exactly how we build these claims.
Who Can Be Held Accountable: The Defendant Map in a Fraternity Death Case
A fraternity death case is never one defendant. It is a stack — and the stack matters because each layer carries different insurance and a different theory of liability.
Sigma Nu National Fraternity. The national organization sets the risk management policies, trains its chapters, and carries the largest insurance tower. The national fraternity’s failure to enforce its own policies against a chapter that was running annual unsanctioned mountain trips is negligent supervision at the institutional level. The national organization’s insurance — typically a multi-million-dollar liability program managed through a fraternal risk management group — is the primary source of recovery in a serious case.
Sigma Nu UCSB Chapter Officers. The individuals who organized, promoted, and led the trip bear direct liability. Chapter officers who planned the Big Bear trip, collected money, arranged the cabin rental, and failed to implement any safety plan for a group of young men at a remote mountain property made decisions that put their brothers at risk. These individuals may be covered under the national fraternity’s insurance, under their own renters or homeowners policies, or may face personal liability that their personal insurance does not cover at all.
The Property Owner in Running Springs. If the fall was caused or worsened by a dangerous condition on the property — a missing railing, an unlit stairway, a drop-off with no barrier, a deck that did not meet building code — the owner of that property faces premises liability. San Bernardino County has land use and safety ordinances that govern short-term rental properties in mountainous terrain, and those ordinances set the standard of care. A property owner who rented a cabin to a group of college students without ensuring that basic safety features were in place may be directly responsible for the fall that led to the death.
Individual Fraternity Members. If the trip involved hazing, physical coercion, or furnishing of alcohol to a person under 21, individual members can face personal liability. California’s social host liability law — Civil Code 1714(d) — allows for liability when an adult furnishes alcohol to a minor at a residence, if that furnishing was the proximate cause of the death. If alcohol was a factor in the fall — and toxicology reports can establish this — the social host theory adds another defendant and another insurance source.
The coverage tower in a fraternity death case can be substantial. The national fraternity typically carries a primary liability policy of at least $1 million, with excess layers stacked above that bringing the total available coverage into the multi-million-dollar range. The property owner’s commercial general liability policy is separate. Individual members’ homeowners policies may provide additional coverage. Finding every layer is half the value of the case — and it is work that starts on the day a family calls.
The Evidence Clock: What Disappears and How Fast
Every wrongful death case is a race against evidence destruction, but fraternity death cases are in a category of their own. The reason is simple: the people who were there are young, they are loyal to each other, and they have access to technology that erases proof in seconds. Here is the evidence that exists right now and how fast it can legally disappear:
Digital communications — Snapchat, GroupMe, text messages. These are the single most important and most fragile pieces of evidence in any fraternity death case. The messages that organized the trip, that discussed what happened during the trip, and that were exchanged in the hours and days after the fall are the proof of what really occurred. Snapchat messages disappear by design. GroupMe threads can be deleted. Text messages can be wiped from a phone in seconds. This evidence is dying right now, and every day that passes makes it more likely that the people who were there have already cleaned their phones. The urgency here is extreme — a preservation letter has to go out the day a family contacts a lawyer, not the week, not the month. The letter must be sent to every individual who was present, to the fraternity chapter, and to the national organization, ordering them to preserve all digital communications on every device and every platform.
The property where the fall occurred. The cabin or property in Running Springs where the student fell is a crime scene in everything but name. If the fall was caused by a dangerous condition — a missing railing, an unlit stairway, a slippery surface, an unguarded drop-off — the property owner can fix, modify, or destroy that condition at any time. We need to inspect the property, photograph it, and if necessary fly a drone to document the terrain, the fall hazards, and the safety features (or lack of them) before anything changes. Property owners modify scenes after accidents — it happens more often than most families would believe. The inspection must happen fast and must be documented thoroughly.
Toxicology and autopsy reports. The San Bernardino County Coroner’s office has the autopsy report and the toxicology panel. These are preserved by the Coroner, but they require a legal subpoena to obtain. The toxicology report will show whether alcohol or drugs were present in the student’s system at the time of the fall — a fact that goes directly to the social host liability theory and to the question of whether the student was impaired by substances furnished by fraternity members. The autopsy report will establish the exact biological mechanism of the head trauma and can help a reconstruction expert understand the mechanics of the fall.
University investigation files. UCSB conducted its own investigation and found the fraternity responsible for an unsanctioned event. Those files — the findings, the witness statements, the disciplinary records — are a roadmap for the civil case. But they are protected by FERPA and privacy holds, and they require aggressive discovery to obtain. The university is not going to hand them over voluntarily. We need to serve targeted discovery requests and, if necessary, file motions to compel.
The four days of medical records at Loma Linda. The student survived for four days at Loma Linda University Medical Center. Those records — the intake notes, the imaging, the neurological assessments, the surgical interventions, the nursing notes, the pain management records — are the proof of the conscious pain and suffering he experienced between the fall and his death. These records exist in the hospital’s electronic medical record system and are preserved, but they must be subpoenaed before routine retention schedules allow them to be archived or destroyed.
The preservation letter is the first weapon in this fight. It goes out the day a family calls. It orders every person and entity that might hold evidence to freeze it — to not delete, not modify, not destroy. If they violate that order, the law gives us leverage: an adverse inference instruction, which tells the jury they may assume the destroyed evidence would have helped the family’s case. That is a powerful weapon, and it begins the moment the letter is on file.
California Wrongful Death Law: What Your Family Can Recover
California’s wrongful death statute — Code of Civil Procedure 377.60 — permits the surviving family members to seek compensation for the losses they suffered because of the death. Who may file is defined by statute: the surviving spouse, the surviving children, the surviving parents, and in some cases other dependents or next of kin. The exact hierarchy of who has standing depends on the family structure, and getting this right at the outset is critical — a person outside the statutory class cannot recover, no matter how close their relationship was to the person who died.
What the family can recover falls into two broad categories. Economic damages include the loss of the financial support the deceased would have provided, the loss of gifts and benefits the family would have received, and funeral and burial expenses. For a college student, the lost earning capacity is the central economic damage — a young person with decades of working life ahead, a career trajectory that was just beginning, and earnings that will never be realized. A forensic economist projects what that life of earnings would have been worth, reduced to present value, and that figure is part of the claim.
Non-economic damages are the human losses — the loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support the deceased would have provided. In California, there is no statutory cap on non-economic damages in a wrongful death case involving a private defendant like a fraternity. That means a jury can award what it believes the loss of the relationship was actually worth, without a ceiling telling it to stop. This is California’s signature advantage for families, and it is one of the reasons venue selection in this state matters so much.
Survival damages are a separate and equally important claim. Under Code of Civil Procedure 377.20, the estate of the deceased can recover damages for the conscious pain and suffering the student experienced between the injury and death. He survived for four days at Loma Linda. During those four days, he may have been conscious, in pain, aware of his condition, and terrified. The medical records — the nursing notes, the pain management orders, the neurological assessments — are the proof of what those four days were like. A survival claim puts a dollar value on that suffering, and it belongs to the estate, not to the family members individually.
California follows a pure comparative negligence doctrine, meaning recovery is not barred even if the decedent was partially at fault, though damages are reduced proportionally.
This is critical. If the defense argues that the student was partly responsible for his own fall — that he was careless, that he was intoxicated, that he chose to go on the trip — California’s pure comparative negligence rule means the family can still recover. The award would be reduced by the student’s percentage of fault, but it is never erased entirely. Even if a jury found the student 50% at fault, the family would still recover 50% of the damages. This is one of the most plaintiff-favorable rules in the country, and the fraternity’s lawyers know it.
The case value range for a fraternity wrongful death with the facts we have described — a young student with significant earning potential, a national fraternity with a multi-million-dollar insurance tower, a four-day survival period with conscious pain and suffering, and potential hazing or alcohol-related aggravating factors — falls in the range of $2 million to $10 million, depending on how the evidence develops. Proving hazing would push the case toward the high end. Proving a pattern of prior unsanctioned trips would increase the punitive damage exposure. Proving that the property had dangerous conditions that the owner failed to warn about would add another defendant and another coverage source. These are not predictions — they are the ranges that similar cases have generated based on the factors that matter. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Four Days: Why Survival Damages Matter So Much in This Case
The student fell on May 21 and died on May 25. Four days. In the language of wrongful death law, those four days are called the survival period, and they are among the most powerful evidence in the case.
When a person dies instantly, the survival claim is limited — there is little or no conscious pain and suffering to compensate. But when a person survives for days, the claim expands dramatically. The medical records from Loma Linda University Medical Center will show what those four days looked like. Was he conscious? Could he communicate? Did he undergo surgery? Was he on a ventilator? What did the nursing notes say about his pain levels, his agitation, his awareness? Did he know he was dying? Did he ask for his family?
Every one of those facts is a piece of damages evidence. A jury that hears about four days of consciousness — four days of pain, four days of fear, four days of a young man knowing he might not survive — will award substantial survival damages on top of the wrongful death damages. The defense knows this, which is why they will try to minimize the survival period — arguing he was unconscious, sedated, or unaware. The medical records answer that argument, and a treating physician or a medical expert can translate the clinical notes into the human experience the jury needs to understand.
This is also where the medicine matters. Blunt force trauma to the head can produce a range of injuries — skull fractures, intracranial hemorrhage, diffuse axonal injury, brain swelling — each with its own clinical course. A severe traumatic brain injury does not always mean immediate unconsciousness; some patients have periods of lucidity followed by deterioration. The Glasgow Coma Scale scores documented in the medical records, the imaging findings, the intracranial pressure readings, and the surgical interventions all tell the story of what those four days were like. Our medical experts read those records and testify to what they mean — not in jargon, but in the plain language a jury understands. You can learn more about how we handle traumatic brain injury cases on our practice page.
The Insurance-Adjuster Playbook: What They’ll Try and How We Counter
The fraternity’s insurance carrier and its claims team have a playbook for exactly this situation. They have handled fraternity death cases before. They know what works and what does not. Here are the plays they will run, and here is how we counter each one:
Play 1: “It was an accident — nobody’s fault.” The adjuster will point to the sheriff’s report, which says “accident,” and argue that the death was an unforeseeable, unavoidable tragedy. The counter is the standard of care: the fraternity violated its own risk management policies, the university’s COVID-19 prohibitions, and industry safety standards by organizing an unsanctioned trip to a remote mountain location with no safety plan, no supervision, and no risk assessment. A fall on steep, poorly lit mountain terrain during a fraternity-organized trip is not an “act of God” — it is the foreseeable consequence of putting a group of young men in a hazardous environment without protections. Our Greek Life Safety Expert will testify to the deviation from industry standards.
Play 2: “The trip was unsanctioned — the national fraternity didn’t approve it.” This is the defense’s favorite move: distance the national organization from the chapter’s conduct. The counter is constructive notice. We prove through discovery that the Big Bear trip was an annual tradition — that the national fraternity and the chapter officers knew about it, had knowledge of prior trips, and failed to stop it. A pattern of repeated conduct that the organization knew about and did not prevent is the definition of negligent supervision. “Unsanctioned” does not mean “unknown.”
Play 3: “He chose to go — he assumed the risk.” The consent defense. In California, Matt’s Law strips this away for hazing. For negligent supervision, the pure comparative negligence rule means the student’s own choices reduce but never erase the recovery. And assumption of risk in California has been narrowed significantly — it applies only to risks that are inherent in the activity itself, not to dangers created by the defendant’s negligence. A student who goes on a fraternity trip does not assume the risk of an unsanctioned event in violation of national policy, on a property with dangerous conditions, organized by officers who owed him a duty of care.
Play 4: The fast, low settlement offer. Within weeks or months, a check may arrive — or a claims representative may call the family with a “compassionate” offer that sounds like a lot of money but is a fraction of what the case is worth. The release attached to that check will waive every claim the family has, forever, in exchange for a number the insurance company’s own software determined was the cheapest way to close the file. The counter is simple: never accept a settlement before the medical records, the toxicology, the digital communications, and the property conditions have been investigated. The first offer is the floor, not the ceiling. And the family should never — never — sign a release without a lawyer reading it first.
Play 5: The “he was drinking” attack. If toxicology shows alcohol in the student’s system, the defense will use it to argue comparative fault. The counter is the social host liability theory — if fraternity members furnished alcohol to a minor at the residence, California Civil Code 1714(d) makes the adult who furnished it liable, and the student’s intoxication does not absolve the fraternity of its duty to protect him. The defense’s attempt to blame the victim for drinking is also an admission that the fraternity allowed underage drinking at its event — which is another policy violation.
Running Springs: The Mountain That Hides Its Hazards
Running Springs sits at approximately 6,000 feet in the San Bernardino Mountains along State Route 18. The geography is steep, rugged, and rocky — the kind of terrain that locals know to treat with respect and that visitors, especially young visitors at night, do not. The properties in the area are a mix of permanent homes and seasonal rentals, many built into hillsides with decks, exterior staircases, retaining walls, and natural drainage features that create fall hazards. The lighting is often minimal. The ground is often uneven. In May, the weather in the mountains can shift from warm to cold in hours, and nighttime temperatures can drop below freezing even as the valleys below stay warm.
For a wrongful death case, the terrain matters in two ways. First, it establishes foreseeability. A mountain property rented to a group of college students presents obvious fall hazards — hazards that the property owner knew about or should have known about, and hazards that the fraternity should have assessed before taking its members there. A property owner who rents a cabin in Running Springs without ensuring that railings are present, stairs are lit, and walking surfaces are safe is creating the conditions for exactly this kind of tragedy.
Second, the terrain affects the emergency response. Running Springs is remote. The nearest Level I trauma center is Loma Linda University Medical Center, roughly an hour down the mountain by ground ambulance, weather and traffic permitting. In a head trauma case, every minute of delayed care matters — not just to the patient’s survival, but to the damages calculation. Delayed transfer, delayed diagnosis, and delayed intervention are all factors that can worsen the outcome and increase the value of the survival claim. The drive-time from Running Springs to Loma Linda is not just a geographic fact; it is a medical fact and a legal fact.
San Bernardino County is also a massive jurisdiction — the largest county by area in the contiguous United States. The jury pool in a wrongful death case filed in San Bernardino County ranges from conservative rural mountain communities to more progressive valley residents, and the composition of that jury can affect how the case is valued and how it should be presented. Venue is a strategic decision that an experienced trial lawyer makes early, based on the facts of the case and the defendant’s connections to the county.
How We Build a Fraternity Wrongful Death Case
Here is how a case like this is actually built, from the day a family calls to the day a jury hears it:
Week one. The preservation letter goes out — to the national fraternity, to the chapter, to every individual member who was present, to the property owner, and to any third-party platforms (Snapchat, GroupMe) that may hold relevant data. The letter orders them to freeze every record, every message, every image, every video, every document. We file the paperwork to open an estate and appoint a personal representative — the one person California law authorizes to bring the wrongful death and survival claims on behalf of the family. We request the coroner’s file, the autopsy report, and the toxicology panel by subpoena.
Weeks two through four. We inspect the property in Running Springs — photographing every hazard, documenting every condition, and if necessary flying a drone to capture the terrain and the relationship between the fall location and the surrounding features. We begin the medical records acquisition from Loma Linda, pulling every record from the four days of hospitalization. We start the process of identifying and interviewing witnesses — the fraternity members who were there, the first responders, the property owner, the neighbors.
Months two through six. Discovery begins. We serve written interrogatories and document requests on every defendant. We demand the national fraternity’s risk management file, the chapter’s historical disciplinary records, the prior trip communications, the insurance policies, and the university’s investigation file. We take depositions — starting with the chapter officers who organized the trip, then the individual members who were present, then the national fraternity’s risk management representative, then the property owner. Each deposition is a chance to lock in testimony before memories fade or stories align.
Months six through twelve. We retain our experts. A Greek Life Safety Expert reviews the risk management failures and testifies to the deviation from industry standards. A forensic reconstructionist analyzes the fall, the property conditions, and the mechanics of the head trauma. A forensic economist calculates the lost earning capacity. A life-care planner projects the costs that would have been associated with the student’s future. A medical expert reviews the hospital records and testifies to the conscious pain and suffering during the four survival days.
Mediation and trial. We use the evidence we have built to create pressure in mediation — the kind of pressure that comes from having the records, the testimony, and the expert opinions that make a jury verdict the defendant’s worst option. If the case does not settle, we try it. And in a California courtroom, with pure comparative negligence, no caps on non-economic damages, and a survival claim built on four days of documented suffering, the ceiling on what a jury can award is set by the evidence, not by a statute.
Our wrongful death practice is built on this exact process. Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court, trying cases against institutions that expected their size and their lawyers to protect them. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like this one — and now he sits on our side of the table, using that knowledge for the families the insurance industry built it against.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does “unsanctioned event” mean, and does it protect the fraternity from liability?
“Unsanctioned” means the trip was not approved by the university or the national fraternity. It does not protect the fraternity — it incriminates it. An unsanctioned event is, by definition, a violation of both university policy and the national fraternity’s own risk management guidelines. The fact that the chapter organized, promoted, and executed a trip that violated those policies is evidence of negligence, not a defense against it. If the national fraternity knew about the annual Big Bear trip and did not stop it, that is negligent supervision. If the chapter officers organized it knowing it violated policy, that is direct negligence. “Unsanctioned” is the fraternity’s confession, not its shield.
The sheriff’s report says the death was an accident. Can we still file a lawsuit?
Yes. A sheriff’s “accident” ruling means law enforcement did not find evidence of a criminal act. It does not mean the death was unavoidable, and it does not prevent a civil lawsuit. Civil wrongful death cases are based on negligence — the failure to exercise reasonable care — not on criminal intent. The standard of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal case (preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt), and the questions a civil lawsuit asks are different: Should this person have been on that mountain? Did the fraternity owe him a duty? Did it breach that duty? Was the breach the cause of the death? A sheriff’s report does not answer any of those questions.
A family member says there was a homicide investigation, but the sheriff’s office says there wasn’t. What does that mean?
Discrepancies between official statements and what the family knows are common in fraternity death cases. The family’s account may reflect information from witnesses, from the university’s investigation, or from other sources that the sheriff’s office did not pursue. The only way to resolve the discrepancy is through the subpoena power of a civil lawsuit, which can compel the production of records, witness statements, and testimony that law enforcement never obtained. If the family believes the official account is incomplete, a wrongful death lawsuit is the tool that can uncover what was missed.
How long do we have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in California?
California’s statute of limitations for wrongful death is generally two years from the date of death, under the personal injury limitations period. However, exceptions and tolling provisions may apply — for example, if the family did not discover the true cause of death until a later date (the discovery rule), if beneficiaries are minors (the clock may be tolled until they turn 18), or if the defendant concealed facts about what happened (fraudulent concealment). If a public entity like a university is a potential defendant, a separate government claim must be filed within six months under the California Government Claims Act. Because the deadlines are strict and the exceptions are fact-specific, the safest move is to call and let us evaluate the specific timeline of your case — do not assume the door is closed until a lawyer has reviewed the facts.
Can we sue the national fraternity, or only the local chapter?
You can sue both. The national fraternity owes a duty to supervise its chapters and enforce its own risk management policies. If the national organization knew or should have known that the UCSB chapter was running annual unsanctioned mountain trips and did not stop them, the national fraternity is liable for negligent supervision. The chapter officers are liable for organizing the trip. The individual members may be liable for their own conduct. The property owner may be liable for dangerous conditions. Each defendant has a different insurance policy and a different theory of liability — and naming every responsible party is how a family ensures that the full coverage is available to compensate the loss.
What if our loved one had been drinking before the fall?
California follows a pure comparative negligence rule, which means the student’s own conduct — including drinking — reduces the recovery but never eliminates it. If a jury found the student was 30% at fault for drinking, the family would still recover 70% of the damages. And if fraternity members furnished alcohol to a person under 21, California’s social host liability law (Civil Code 1714(d)) makes the person who furnished the alcohol liable, which adds another theory of recovery. The defense will try to use alcohol to blame the victim. The law says that is not the end of the case — it is a reduction, not a bar.
What is Matt’s Law, and does it apply to this case?
Matt’s Law is California’s anti-hazing statute, named for Matthew Carrington, a Chico State student who died during a fraternity hazing incident in 2005. The law creates criminal penalties for hazing and — critically for civil cases — strips away the “he consented” defense. If the Running Springs trip involved initiation rites, coerced behavior, or activities that were a precondition to membership, Matt’s Law applies and the fraternity cannot defend itself by saying the student chose to participate. Whether the trip qualifies as hazing depends on facts that only discovery can uncover — the digital communications, the witness statements, and the chapter’s internal records.
How much is a fraternity wrongful death case worth?
Based on the factors in this case — a young student with significant future earning potential, a national fraternity with a multi-million-dollar insurance tower, a four-day survival period with conscious pain and suffering, and potential hazing or alcohol-related aggravating factors — the case value range is approximately $2 million to $10 million. Proving hazing would push the case toward the high end. Proving a pattern of prior unsanctioned trips would increase punitive damage exposure. Proving dangerous property conditions would add another defendant and coverage source. These are not guarantees — they are the ranges that similar cases have generated. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The only way to know what your specific case is worth is to let us evaluate the evidence.
Should we participate in the fraternity’s “healing project” or “philanthropy” before talking to a lawyer?
No. The fraternity’s chapter president has publicly discussed creating a “philanthropy project” in the student’s honor. While that may be genuinely intended, it is also a tactical maneuver that can serve the fraternity’s legal interests: it creates goodwill, it generates positive publicity, and it can be used to argue that the fraternity has already “done enough” for the family. Before participating in any fraternity-led project, memorial, or statement, the family should consult with a lawyer. Anything the family says or does in that context can be used by the defense in litigation. The family’s first conversation should be with an attorney, not with the fraternity that is trying to manage its image after a death on its watch.
What should we do right now, today, if we are considering a lawsuit?
Call us. The evidence is dying — Snapchat messages, GroupMe threads, text messages, and potentially the physical conditions at the property in Running Springs can all disappear or be modified. The preservation letter that freezes that evidence goes out the day you call, not the week after. The coroner’s file, the medical records, the university investigation file — all of these need to be requested through legal process, and that process starts with a phone call. The consultation is free, the call is confidential, and there is no fee unless we win your case.
Our Firm: The People Who Take This Fight
Ralph P. Manginello is the managing partner of Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. He has been licensed since November 6, 1998 — 27+ years of trial practice, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find a story the powerful would rather keep buried. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He is currently lead counsel in an active $10 million hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston — a case that demonstrates exactly how we build fraternity liability claims from the ground up. Ralph does not settle cases because they are hard. He tries them because the families deserve the truth, and the truth is in the records the fraternity does not want to produce.
Lupe Peña is an associate attorney at the firm. He was a former insurance-defense attorney at a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their valuation software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the other side sets reserves in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered to get you to say “I’m feeling okay,” how the claim is fed into software that discounts pain it cannot see, and how the quick settlement check arrives with a release printed on the back before the medical results do. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients and grieving families. Lupe is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — and we say that with pride.
We take cases on contingency. That means you do not pay us anything unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless you get paid. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we have live staff available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service, but people who can take your call right now and connect you with a lawyer who knows this area of law.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different, and the specific facts of your situation determine what claims are available, what deadlines apply, and what the case is worth. The only way to know is to call.
1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.