Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdefendantappealverdictwill
plaintiffdefendanttrialverdictwill

Related Cases

Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc., 610 F.3d 820, 2010-1 Trade Cases P 77,080
View Case »
Bing v. Bank of Kingston, 5 Ga.App. 578, 63 S.E. 652
View Case »
Bostic v. Smyrna School Dist., 418 F.3d 355, 200 Ed. Law Rep. 573
View Case »
Allison v. Campbell, 117 Tex. 277, 298 S.W. 523
View Case »
Titan Sports, Inc. v. Comics World Corp., 870 F.2d 85, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1311, 16 Media L. Rep. 1408
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barr v. Cunningham, 2017 IL 120751, 89 N.E.3d 315, 417 Ill.Dec. 667, 350 Ed. Law Rep. 1093

Facts

Evan Barr, a student, filed a personal injury complaint against his gym teacher, Laurel Cunningham, and Township High School District 211 after suffering an eye injury during a floor hockey game. Barr alleged that Cunningham's failure to require students to wear protective eyewear constituted willful and wanton misconduct. The Circuit Court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, citing supervisory immunity. Barr appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On June 3, 2010, plaintiff was playing floor hockey with 11 other students in his physical education class when a ball bounced off his stick and hit him in the eye, causing injury to his eye. In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that Cunningham, the physical education instructor, was willful and wanton in failing to require the students to wear protective eyewear while playing floor hockey.

Issue

Did the gym teacher's failure to require students to wear safety goggles during a floor hockey game constitute willful and wanton conduct, thereby negating her claim to supervisory immunity?

Did the gym teacher's failure to require students to wear safety goggles during a floor hockey game constitute willful and wanton conduct, thereby negating her claim to supervisory immunity?

Rule

Under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, a public employee is not liable for injuries unless they are guilty of willful and wanton conduct in their supervision, which is defined as a deliberate intention to cause harm or an utter indifference to the safety of others. A directed verdict may be granted if the evidence overwhelmingly favors the movant, indicating no reasonable jury could find otherwise.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether Cunningham's conduct could be classified as willful and wanton. The court noted that Cunningham had implemented safety measures, such as using plastic sticks and 'squishy' balls, and believed that serious injuries were unlikely. The court found that the absence of prior injuries and the nature of the game did not support a claim of willful and wanton conduct, as there was no evidence that Cunningham had reason to believe a serious injury could occur.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and affirmed the Circuit Court's directed verdict in favor of the defendants, concluding that the teacher's actions did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct.

The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for defendants on the issue of whether defendants were guilty of willful and wanton conduct in the exercise of their supervisory authority.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was the defendants, Township High School District 211 and Laurel Cunningham. The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support a claim of willful and wanton conduct against the teacher, as she had taken reasonable precautions to ensure student safety during the floor hockey game. The court emphasized that the lack of prior injuries and the nature of the equipment used indicated that Cunningham's decision not to require goggles was not a conscious disregard for safety.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of defendants on the issue of supervisory immunity, concluding that Cunningham's decision not to require the students to use available safety equipment did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct.

You must be