Doe v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
2017 IL App (1st) 162388
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (John Doe) alleges that former priest Daniel McCormack sexually molested him while he attended St. Agatha’s, a school owned/operated by the Catholic Bishop of Chicago.
- Plaintiff sued for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and moved to amend to add a punitive damages claim.
- Plaintiff’s supporting evidence included: prior scandal knowledge within the diocese; failure to follow record-keeping policies; knowledge of McCormack’s misconduct as a seminarian; and failure to investigate or report suspicious incidents after ordination.
- The trial court allowed the punitive damages claim, rejecting defendant’s contention that plaintiff must prove actual knowledge of McCormack’s particular propensity to sexually abuse children.
- The trial court certified the narrow question under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308: whether punitive damages in a negligent-employment claim require proof of an employer’s conscious disregard for an employee’s “particular unfitness.”
- The appellate court answered the certified question: no — actual knowledge of a specific propensity is not required at the pretrial punitive-damages showing stage; the trial court properly applied the willful/wanton standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages in a negligent hiring/retention claim require proof that employer actually knew of the employee’s particular propensity to abuse | Plaintiff argued punitive damages are proper if evidence permits a jury to find willful or wanton misconduct (utter indifference/conscious disregard) by the employer | Defendant argued plaintiff must prove actual knowledge of the employee’s particular unfitness/propensity to sexually assault children to justify punitive damages | Held: No—plaintiff need not prove actual knowledge of a specific propensity; punitive damages may proceed if evidence could let a jury find willful/wanton conduct (gross negligence or conscious disregard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Loitz v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 138 Ill. 2d 404 (trial court must preliminarily determine whether evidence can support punitive damages)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172 (punitive damages appropriate for willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct)
- Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299 (elements of negligent hiring/retention require employer knew or should have known of particular unfitness)
- Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 161 Ill. 2d 267 (willful and wanton conduct is a hybrid between negligence and intentional tort; no thin-line definition)
- Cirrincione v. Johnson, 184 Ill. 2d 109 (appropriateness of punitive damages is a legal question; whether conduct is willful/wanton is typically for jury)
- Oelze v. Score Sports Venture, LLC, 401 Ill. App. 3d 110 (knowledge of circumstances and utter indifference are factors in willful/wanton analysis)
- Bryant v. Livigni, 250 Ill. App. 3d 303 (plaintiff may plead negligence and willful/wanton misconduct in the alternative)
- McMichael v. Michael Reese Health Plan Foundation, 259 Ill. App. 3d 113 (Rule 308 interlocutory appeals are limited to the certified question)