Last year, two Ohio state Senate Judiciary Committee members told this news organization that anti-hazing laws may be too narrow because the language may unduly restrict prosecution.
Attorneys for Max Engelhart and UD issued nearly identical statements about the lawsuit that played a role in raising questions in the Ohio statehouse about whether laws related to hazing were too narrow.
RELATED: ‘Hazing statute does not go far enough,’ lawmaker says
“The Engelhart v. UD matter has been resolved to the parties’ satisfaction,” said Engelhart’s attorney, Scott Jones. “Beyond that I cannot comment.”
A statement from UD read: “The matter has been resolved to the parties’ satisfaction. The University will have no additional comment.”
The dismissal entry filed last month by Jones indicates UD “shall bear all court costs.”
RELATED: UD fights hazing lawsuit; law differs from school policy
Engelhart claimed he was forced to chug high-alcohol drinks like Four Loko as part of a “Mad Dogs” or “Mad Caps” initiation to the UD football team. Defendants included UD football coach Rick Chamberlin, strength coach Jared Phillips and others.
Engelhart, then a 6-foot-1, 270-pound offensive lineman, said he woke up Dec. 8, 2014, covered in his own vomit, feces and urine and with a headache later diagnosed by UD’s team physician as a concussion.
RELATED: Hazing ‘normalized’ in our culture, expert says
UD’s Department of Safety logs revealed there had been reports of hazing during that weekend and that students said “Mad Dogs” was an annual event.
Engelhart claims he quit football, left the university and was prescribed a medicine typically given to Alzheimer’s and dementia patients.
RELATED: UD asks judge to dismiss alleged hazing lawsuit
Jones said in the past that Ohio criminal hazing cases aren’t common and that a University of Toledo case — which recently was overturned on appeal in favor of the plaintiff football player — was a rare case with somewhat similar facts.
“I did not know that the hazing law ended at the point of that first entry into (a group),” said judiciary committee member Cecil Thomas (D-Cincinnati). “Obviously, the law does not go far enough.”
Comments by Thomas and judiciary committee chair Kevin Bacon (R-Minerva Park) came against the backdrop of a Penn State University fraternity pledge dying after allegedly being forced to drink to excess and Engelhart’s lawsuit.
RELATED: UD sued for alleged 2014 hazing incident
The first paragraph of Ohio Revised Code 2903.31 — enacted March 3, 1983 and never amended — states: "As used in this section, 'hazing' means doing any act or coercing another, including the victim, to do any act of initiation into any student or other organization that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm to any person."
“With respect to that part of the code,” Bacon said last year. “I think it very well may need to be broadened.”
UD’s own anti-hazing policy — which differs from state law — addresses “any planned/executed action or activity, by or against an active member, associate member, pledge or potential member or new member of an organization or group.”
READ: State-by-state hazing laws
UD’s policy says any activity that causes “physical or mental harm, distress, anxiety, or which may demean, degrade, embarrass or disgrace any person, regardless of location, consent or intention is prohibited.”
The policy cites examples of hazing such as forced consumption of food, alcohol or drugs and other physical activity.
University officials said Thursday via a statement that, “While we continually review our policies and procedures to (ensure) they are current and in line with best practices, neither the definition, nor our policies and procedures have changed.”
BY THIS REPORTER: Read other stories from Mark Gokavi
A founder of stophazing.org said last year that hazing has become normalized.
“You hear people rationalize it or dismiss it or minimize it, saying, ‘Oh, no, no, that wasn’t hazing, that was just an initiation, or that was just a tradition, or that was just for bonding,’ ” said Dr. Elizabeth Allan, a University of Maine professor and Ohio State University graduate.
Last year, visiting Judge Peter Handwork from Lucas County “denied in full” the university’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. He said at the time that he didn’t have any case law to determine whether Ohio’s anti-hazing laws were correctly applied in the lawsuit.
SOCIAL MEDIA: Follow Mark Gokavi on Twitter or Facebook
Handwork referenced the allegation that Phillips supposedly warned freshmen football players that “Mad Caps” was coming and to get ready as a reason a negligence claim should move forward.
UD attorneys James Keller and Christina Riggs cited the Dayton Daily News article quoting state lawmakers saying that Ohio's hazing statute may be too narrow as written. Both sides also cited the Merriam-Webster definition of the word initiation.
“The definition of hazing is not just to gain membership into a group, but it’s also to maintain one’s membership,” Allen said. “The state laws are very uneven across the board.”
About the Author