Doe v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
2017 IL App (1st) 162388
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (John Doe) sued the Catholic Bishop of Chicago for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention after a former priest, Daniel McCormack, allegedly sexually molested him while plaintiff attended St. Agatha’s school.
- Plaintiff sought leave to add a punitive damages claim, alleging the Diocese consciously disregarded known risks posed by priests, including knowledge of prior misconduct and failures to investigate or report McCormack.
- Trial court granted leave to amend to add punitive damages, rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff must show actual knowledge of the priest’s particular propensity to abuse.
- Trial court certified a permissive interlocutory question under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308: whether punitive damages require proof that an employer consciously disregarded an employee’s "particular unfitness" in negligent hiring/retention cases.
- Appellate court limited review to that certified question and framed it as whether plaintiff must show defendant actually knew McCormack had a propensity to sexually abuse children to seek punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages in negligent hiring/retention require proof employer had actual knowledge of employee's particular propensity to commit the tort | Punitive damages are available where evidence supports a finding of utter indifference or conscious disregard for safety based on surrounding facts; actual knowledge of propensity is not required | Plaintiff must show the employer had actual knowledge of the employee's particular unfitness/propensity to sexually assault children to support punitive damages | No. Plaintiff need not show actual knowledge of the employee's particular propensity; punitive damages may be submitted if evidence could reasonably show willful or wanton conduct (utter indifference or conscious disregard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Loitz v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 138 Ill. 2d 404 (punitive damages punish and deter; not for ordinary negligence)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172 (punitive damages appropriate for willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct)
- McMichael v. Michael Reese Health Plan Foundation, 259 Ill. App. 3d 113 (Rule 308 appeals limited to certified question)
- Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299 (elements of negligent hiring/retention and "particular unfitness")
- Ziarko v. Soo Line Railroad Co., 161 Ill. 2d 267 (willful and wanton conduct is a hybrid of negligence and intentional tort; degree-based inquiry)
- Cirrincione v. Johnson, 184 Ill. 2d 109 (appropriateness of punitive damages is a legal question; willful and wanton factual determination for jury)
- Oelze v. Score Sports Venture, LLC, 401 Ill. App. 3d 110 (knowledge and conscious disregard are factors in willful and wanton analysis)
- Bryant v. Livigni, 250 Ill. App. 3d 303 (plaintiff may plead negligence and willful and wanton misconduct in the alternative)