Barr v. Cunningham
89 N.E.3d 315
Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Evan Barr, a 15-year-old high school student, was injured in the eye while playing floor hockey in PE class at Conant High School using plastic sticks and soft safety balls.
- PE teacher Laurel Cunningham supervised the game, enforced safety rules, and testified she believed the modified equipment and rules made goggles unnecessary.
- A box of safety goggles was kept with the equipment, but there was no evidence they were purchased specifically for floor hockey; plaintiff said he likely would not have worn them even if he knew they existed.
- No prior eye or serious injuries from floor hockey with the same equipment were shown; department chair testified no policy required goggles.
- Trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, holding plaintiff failed to prove willful and wanton conduct under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act §3-108; appellate court reversed and remanded.
- Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court, affirmed the directed verdict for defendants, finding no evidence supporting willful and wanton conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ failure to require safety goggles constitutes willful and wanton conduct under §3-108 | Cunningham consciously disregarded student safety by not requiring available goggles | Cunningham reasonably relied on modified equipment and enforced safety rules; no knowledge of a risk of serious harm | Held for defendants: no willful and wanton conduct proved; directed verdict proper |
| Whether lack of prior incidents precludes willful and wanton finding | Prior incidents not required; availability of goggles and knowledge that ball could rise support a jury question | Absence of prior injuries and expert evidence that activity is dangerous means no notice of serious risk | Held for defendants: no evidence that activity was generally associated with serious risk or that Cunningham knew of impending danger |
| Whether factual disputes or credibility issues require jury resolution | Plaintiff: jury could infer conscious disregard from facts | Defendants: evidence shows precautions and absence of notice; no substantial factual dispute | Held for defendants: no substantial factual dispute or credible conflict that would allow a contrary verdict |
| Whether appellate reversal of directed verdict was correct | Plaintiff urged reversal to allow jury to decide willful and wanton issue | Defendants sought reinstatement of directed verdict based on legal standard for willful and wanton | Held for defendants: appellate court reversed; circuit court judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (establishes standard for directed verdict review)
- Lynch v. Board of Education of Collinsville Community Unit District No. 10, 82 Ill. 2d 415 (precautions taken by school personnel may preclude willful and wanton finding)
- Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, 224 Ill. 2d 213 (activity known to carry inherent catastrophic risk can create issues of willful and wanton conduct)
- Miller v. General Motors Corp., 207 Ill. App. 3d 148 (discusses knowledge-of-danger element for willful and wanton)
- Hadley v. Witt Unit School District 66, 123 Ill. App. 3d 19 (failure to act after observing a dangerous activity may be willful and wanton)