Barr v. Cunningham
2016 IL App (1st) 150437
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Student Evan Barr (15) was struck in the eye by a floor-hockey ball during a supervised PE class taught by Laurel Cunningham and sued Cunningham and District 211 for willful and wanton failure to require protective goggles.
- Goggles were available in the equipment closet with the hockey balls; Cunningham testified she could have required them but did not, believing the modified equipment (squishy ball, plastic sticks), limited players, and rules (no high-sticking, checking) made goggles unnecessary.
- Barr had played floor hockey in Cunningham's class multiple prior times and had seen the ball fly above waist level on occasion; Cunningham acknowledged the ball could hit a student in the face but had never seen a prior facial injury.
- Defendants raised affirmative defenses under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act: supervisory-immunity (§3-108) arguing plaintiff failed to show willful/wanton conduct, and discretionary/policy immunity (§2-201) arguing Cunningham’s decision was discretionary/policy-based.
- Trial court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, then after plaintiff rested granted a directed verdict for defendants under §3-108 (finding no willful and wanton conduct) but rejected §2-201 immunity; plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding a jury could reasonably find Cunningham’s conscious decision not to require already-available safety goggles rose to willful and wanton conduct; the court also held §2-201 did not apply based on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported willful and wanton conduct (Immunity under §3-108) | Barr: Cunningham consciously disregarded student safety by not requiring available goggles despite knowing the ball could pop up and risk facial injury. | Defs: Teacher took reasonable safety measures (modified ball/sticks, rules, limited players); failure to take more precautions is at most negligence, not willful/wanton. | Reversed trial court: evidence was sufficient to let a jury decide; directed verdict improper. |
| Whether §2-201 discretionary/policy immunity bars liability | Barr: Decision not to require goggles was not a policy decision balancing competing interests and thus not protected. | Defs: Choosing not to require goggles was a discretionary/policy judgment entitled to immunity, even if abused. | Affirmed trial court’s earlier view that §2-201 did not apply on this record; no evidence of a school-level policy balancing competing interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 161 Ill.2d 267 (willful and wanton conduct exists on a continuum)
- Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill.2d 494 (standard for directed verdict; must view evidence in plaintiff's favor and determine whether no contrary verdict could stand)
- Lynch v. Bd. of Educ. of Collinsville C.U.S.D. No. 10, 82 Ill.2d 415 (insufficient precautions do not automatically constitute willful and wanton conduct)
- Hadley v. Witt Unit Sch. Dist. 66, 123 Ill. App.3d 19 (failure to ensure use of safety goggles and supervision raised fact question on willful and wanton conduct)
- Poelker v. Warrensburg-Latham Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 11, 251 Ill. App.3d 270 (implementation of safety rules may show absence of willful and wanton conduct)
- Arteman v. Clinton Cmty. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 198 Ill.2d 475 (refusal to provide safety equipment can be a discretionary policy determination if record shows balancing of competing interests)