I have no idea if if this is your area of expertise or not, but could Zimmerman have a case against Martins parents since their son was the proximate cause of his arrest and trial?
To some extent the question of proximate cause will be determined in the criminal prosecution. If Zimmerman were found guilty of any degree of homicide and the conviction stood, he would be in a situation where it would be nearly impossible to collect from Martin's parents. If Zimmerman is acquitted (as I think he should be), then he has been found to be (not innocent as such) not guilty in the contemplation of our law. This COULD mean that the jury found him to be factually and legally innocent or it could merely mean that any guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which happened in OJ's murder case).
In a civil action, different jurisdictions have different rules. If Florida is a state where comparative liability is imposed, and a jury decided that the liability for Zimmerman's damages were 75% that of Trayvon (and his parents) and 25% that of Zimmerman, subtract 25% from 75% and Trayvon or his parents pay 50% of the damages. That may be further cut if Florida limits the parental liability for act of the minor to a set dollar figure.
If the Florida standard were one recognizing contributory liability by the victim, then the award of damages might be prohibited altogether.
There might also be counterclaims and setoffs in which Zimmerman might be found liable for Trayvon's death.
Your question had been "could Zimmerman have a case against Martin's parents...?" Most lawyers would say yes, that almost anyone can sue almost anyone. The more important question is as to whether the person suing is likely to prove his/her/their case, and for how much? Another is whether there is a statute of limitations requiring that any action be filed within a limited time period and whether that time has expired.
God bless you and yours!
P.S. I am retired and no longer practice. The foregoing is the opinion of one who is now just a man in the street, one who never practiced law in Florida and one who will gladly defer to any experienced Florida lawyer on the question asked. The foregoing is an intellectual exercise and NOT legal advice.
I don't think the Martin parents are, nor do I think they should be, legally responsible for legal and other costs Mr. Zimmerman has incurred as a result of their son's actions against him. On the other hand, I doubt that Mr. Zimmerman would have been prosecuted were it not for actions taken by the parents themselves. I don't know to what extent Mr. Crump is acting at the parents' behest, and to what extent he's acting on his own, but if the parents' actions have been unreasonable, that might be a basis for a cause of action against them.
On the other hand, whether or not the parents' behavior would be actionable, Mr. Crump's actions certainly should be. Mr. Crump has made numerous statements which were not only false, but they were made with the purpose of causing harm to Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Crump could not have reasonably believed them to be true. Once all is said and done, Mr. Zimmerman should own Mr. Crump.
I think Mr. Zimmerman should probably also be able to recover damages from any of the prosecutors, but that would likely be much harder. Prosecutors generally have immunity for any sort of judgment calls they make regarding whether or not a case should be prosecuted. On the other hand, subornation of perjury is a criminal offense, and its definition extends to situations where attorneys deliberately misrepresent the facts of a case. Some of the prosecutors' actions seem less than 100% truthful, and may have crossed over that line far enough to be actionable.