Waugh v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
2012 IL App (1st) 102653
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Multiple lawsuits arising from a fatal 2006 plane crash involving Mark Turek, the trainer, and three passengers.
- Plaintiffs allege negligent training/education by Levinson, Hark, Recurrent, and Arr-ow contributed to the crash.
- Morgan Stanley and others moved for summary judgment arguing the claims sound in educational malpractice and are not cognizable in Illinois.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment to the training defendants, dismissing educational-malpractice counts as noncognizable.
- Court addressed whether Illinois recognizes educational-malpractice claims and, if so, whether exceptions apply; also considered Rule 304(a) jurisdiction on appeals.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding educational malpractice claims are not cognizable in Illinois and upholding Rule 304(a) rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the training claims educational malpractice claims and cognizable in Illinois? | Garland/Morgan Stanley argue ordinary negligence; claims fit educational malpractice. | Defendants contend Illinois does not recognize educational malpractice as a tort. | Claims sound in educational malpractice and are not cognizable. |
| If cognizable, does Illinois allow such educational-malpractice claims against flight instructors/educators? | Claims should be analyzed for duty and standard of care in education. | Public policy and precedent bar educational-malpractice claims in Illinois. | Illinois does not recognize educational-malpractice claims; barred as a matter of law. |
| Was the court's Rule 304(a) modification approach proper to preserve appeals? | Cross-appellants timely after proper Rule 304(a) language; jurisdiction preserved. | Rule 304(a) steps were improper or misapplied to extend appeal time. | Court properly maintained jurisdiction; notices of appeal timely and cross-appeals timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas Airmotive, Inc. v. FlightSafety International, Inc., 277 S.W.3d 696 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (educational-malpractice bar; duty to avoid physical injury in training context)
- Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 796 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (education quality claims not cognizable; focus on education as duty)
- Doe v. Yale University, 748 A.2d 834 (Conn. 2000) (distinguishes educational-malpractice from ordinary negligence in education setting)
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352 (Ill. 2010) (employee/employer context; duty analysis in educational-like settings not controlling here)
- Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (Illinois would reject educational malpractice; policy concerns)
- Page v. Klein Tools, Inc., 610 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. 2000) (dissent discussed educational-malpractice boundaries; cited in education context)
- Doe v. Yale University, 748 A.2d 834 (Conn. 2000) (distinction between educational-duty and non-educational negligence)
- Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 391 N.E.2d 1352 (N.Y. 1979) (classic educational-malpractice discussion in education setting)