The Psi Upsilon fraternity could be held at least partially liable in court for the injuries sustained by College junior Matthew Paris at a September party, according to some Penn Law professors.
This is in spite of the fact that a University investigation earlier this month cleared the fraternity of any culpability for the injury.
"A determination through an internal University investigation isn't [legally] decisive," said Law professor Jacques deLisle, adding, however, that the University's findings could be introduced as persuasive evidence in a hearing.
Paris likely has legal standing to file a lawsuit, but would have to prove that negligence on the part of the fraternity contributed directly to his injury.
The key question in a lawsuit, according to Law professor Anita Allen-Castellitto, would be, "Whose negligence was the substantial factor in the injury?"
Paris, who turned 21 on the night of the party, reportedly had 21 marks on his arm representing the number of shots of alcohol he had consumed. He sustained critical injuries after falling two stories over a banister, which left him in the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for nearly a month before moving to a rehabilitation center.
A University investigation found that the fraternity did not entirely prevent access to alcohol for underage drinkers and found evidence of hard alcohol, in violation of the campus alcohol policy.
It did not find any causal connections between these violations and Paris' fall.
Nevertheless, Allen-Castellitto and deLisle both said that Paris and his family could legally file a suit against the fraternity.
"There's no question in my mind that the young man and the family could have a cause of action against someone here," Allen-Castellitto said.
DeLisle outlined what he believes would be the three main points of a potential suit.
The first issue is whether or not Paris drank a substantial amount of alcohol at the Psi Upsilon party. For the fraternity to be held liable in this scenario, it would have to be found that any drinking Paris did at the party causally contributed to his high level of inebriation, and that his drunkenness contributed directly to his fall.
It is unknown how much Paris drank at the party, but Allen-Castellitto said that "a good legal investigator could find out who served him the alcohol."
The outcome of a potential lawsuit could also hinge on whether or not the fraternity was negligent in allowing access to the banister from which Paris fell.
Although deLisle admitted that this is "probably a hard claim" to prove, he said, "If you know that people are going to be drunk and wandering around, that is something you must take into account in planning the party and making your premises safe."
"The key issue is whether or not somebody was in breach of duty to care for him" by allowing him access to the railing, Allen-Castellitto said.
Both professors added that this claim would be particularly pertinent if the railing was determined to be rickety, unusually low or in some other manner dangerous.
Additionally, the law can hold hosts accountable if they are "careless and unreasonable in serving alcohol," according to deLisle. Again, this negligence would have to have directly contributed to Paris' injury.
The fact that the alcohol was being served to minors could hurt the defendants in a potential lawsuit, as it shows at least some degree of negligence.
The server negligence argument could be undermined, however, by proving the carelessness of Paris himself.
If he knowingly drank 21 shots of alcohol, according to Allen-Castellitto, then Paris and those who encouraged him would bear nearly all the responsibility.
She added, however, that in Pennsylvania there is something called comparative fault. This means that liability is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Although Paris could be found to have contributed significantly to his own injury, others could be held at least partly responsible.
But above all, the key issue in a potential lawsuit would still be to what extent Paris contributed to his own harm.
Scenarios for liabilityFor Matthew Paris to collect damages in a potential civil lawsuit against the Psi Upsilon fraternity, according to Law School professors, one of the following scenarios would have to be proven true: Alcohol consumption location: Paris consumed enough alcohol at the fraternity to contribute to his injuries. Stairway access: The fraternity was negligent in allowing individuals to go on or near the stairwell where Paris fell. Server negligence: The fraternity was distributing alcohol in an irresponsible manner.
