Waugh v. MORGAN STANLEY AND CO., INC.
966 N.E.2d 540
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Following a fatal plane crash, multiple wrongful death and contribution actions were filed against flight schools and trainers tied to the pilot, with consolidated discovery in the circuit court.
- Turek, the pilot, trained with Arr-ow II, Recurrent Training Center, and instructor Levinson; FAA-certified programs and equipment were used, and Turek was deemed proficient prior to the crash.
- Morgan Stanley and others alleged negligent training by Levinson and Hark, seeking contribution; Garland and Knudson asserted educational-malpractice claims against the same training entities.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing educational-malpractice claims as non-cognizable in Illinois and dismissed related contribution counts.
- The appellate court consolidated appeals and addressed whether Illinois recognizes educational malpractice and whether the rulings on those claims were correct, as well as Rule 304(a) appellate timing issues.
- The court ultimately affirmed the trial court, holding that Illinois does not cognize educational-malpractice claims and that the notices of appeal were timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are educational-malpractice claims cognizable in Illinois? | Garland argues the claims allege negligent instruction affecting outcomes. | Levinson/Hark argue Illinois does not recognize educational malpractice; claims are ordinary negligence. | Educational malpractice is not cognizable; claims dismissed. |
| Do the pre-crash training claims fall under educational malpractice or ordinary negligence? | Plaintiffs contend it is negligent instruction affecting safety. | Defendants contend it remains within the educational-malpractice bar. | Claims sound in educational malpractice and are barred. |
| Did the circuit court correctly apply the Rule 304(a) final-judgment timing for appeals? | Appellants argue notices were timely under 304(a) amendments. | Recurrent challenges the jurisdiction based on timing. | Court had jurisdiction; notices timely; cross-appeals proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas Airmotive, Inc. v. FlightSafety International, Inc., 277 S.W.3d 696 (Mo.Ct.App. 2010) (educational-malpractice claims barred; duty limited to safe instruction)
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill.2d 352 (2010) (duty analysis not applicable to educational-malpractice bar; education claims barred)
- Doe v. Yale University, 252 Conn. 641 (2000) (distinction between duty to educate and duty not to cause harm; cognizability depends on duty)
- Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill.2d 198 (1999) (quality of education is a legislative, not judicial, question)
- Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (public policy cautions against recognizing educational malpractice)