Oswald v. Township High School Dist. No. 214

• Decision Date: 30 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-401,79-401
• Citation: 406 N.E.2d 157,40 Ill.Dec. 456,84 Ill.App.3d 723
• Parties: , 40 Ill.Dec. 456 John OSWALD, a minor, by Johann Oswald, his father and next friend, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 214, a Municipal Corporation, and Michael Hannon, Defendants, Michael Hannon, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 157

406 N.E.2d 157

84 Ill.App.3d 723, 40 Ill.Dec. 456

John OSWALD, a minor, by Johann Oswald, his father and next friend, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 214, a Municipal Corporation, and Michael Hannon, Defendants Michael Hannon, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-401.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

May 30, 1980.

Lucy & Suhar, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant; Richard H. Lucy and Gerald M. Chapman, Chicago, of counsel.

Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, P.C., of Chicago, for defendant-appellee; James T. Ferrini, James W. Ozog and Margaret J. Orbon, Chicago, of counsel.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice:

Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing Count III of his third amended complaint (the complaint). Sounding in negligence, this count was directed against Michael Hannon (defendant). Counts I and II, which charged Township High School District No. 214 and defendant with wilful and wanton misconduct, are not involved in this appeal.

The complaint generally alleges that plaintiff was injured when kicked while playing basketball in a required high school gym class. In Count III, it is alleged that at the time of the occurrence, the National Federation of State High School Association rules governing the protection and safety of participants in basketball games were in effect; that defendant knew or should have known of these rules; that defendant owed a duty to play the game in accordance with those rules and to exercise care to avoid causing injury to other participants; that defendant violated, failed to comply with, or failed to conduct himself in a manner consistent with the rules and that, as a proximate result thereof, plaintiff was injured.

The motion to dismiss Count III was granted for failure to state a cause of action, and this appeal followed.

OPINION

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether a cause of action was stated in Count III. In this regard, we note that in the consideration of the motion to dismiss the pleading, the allegations of fact in the complaint are taken as true (Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package Machinery Co. (1978) 70 Ill.2d 1, 15 Ill.Dec. 829, 374 N.E.2d 437, cert. denied (1978), 436 U.S. 946, 98 S.Ct. 2849, 56 L.Ed.2d 787) and that, in determining the propriety of such a dismissal, we are concerned only with the questions of law presented by the pleadings (Fancil v. Q.S.E. Foods, Inc. (1975) 60 Ill.2d 552, 328 N.E.2d 538).

In the instant case, the question of law presented by the parties is whether liability for injuries sustained as a result of the breach of a safety rule in a physical education class basketball game may be predicated upon ordinary negligence, as plaintiff argues, or whether wilful and wanton misconduct must be shown to permit recovery, as defendant maintains.

In support of their respective positions, both parties rely upon Nabozny v. Barnhill (1975) 31 Ill.App.3d 212, 334 N.E.2d 258, and Stewart v. D. & R. Welding Supply Co. (1977) 51 Ill.App.3d 597, 9 Ill.Dec. 596, 366 N.E.2d 1107. In Nabozny, plaintiff was a goalkeeper for a high school age amateur soccer team, and defendant was a forward on the opposing team. The game was played under rules which prohibit all players from making contact with the goalkeeper while he is in possession of the ball in the penalty area, and provides that shoulder to shoulder contact is the only permissible contact between players going for a ball. During the game, the ball was passed to plaintiff who had possession of it in the penalty area when defendant, who had been going for the ball, continued to run toward plaintiff and his foot came in contact with plaintiff's head.

The Nabozny complaint was predicated on ordinary negligence and, at the close of the plaintiff's case, a verdict was directed for defendant and this ruling was reversed on appeal. The reviewing court, after noting that the "law should not place unreasonable burdens on the free and vigorous participation in sports by our youth" and that "some of the restraints of civilization must accompany every athlete onto the playing field" (31 Ill.App.3d at 215, 334 N.E.2d at 260), concluded that:

"For these reasons, this court believes that when athletes are engaged in an athletic competition; all teams involved are trained and coached by knowledgeable personnel; a recognized set of rules governs the conduct of the competition; and a safety rule is contained therein which is primarily designed to protect players from a serious injury, a player is then charged with a legal duty to every other player on the field to refrain from conduct proscribed by a safety rule. A reckless disregard for the safety of other players cannot be excused. To engage in such conduct is to create an intolerable and unreasonable risk of serious injury to other participants. * * *

It is our opinion that a player is liable for injury in a tort action if his conduct is such that it is either deliberate, wilful or with a reckless disregard for the safety of the other player, * * *." (31 Ill.App.3d at 215, 334 N.E.2d at 260-61.) (Emphasis added.)

From the emphasized language, defendant takes the position that the predicate of legal liability established in Nabozny was willfulness or reckless disregard of safety. However, because the complaint in Nabozny charged only ordinary negligence, plaintiff argues that "although the language from the opinion sounds in intentional tort, the opinion, viewed in the light of the pleadings on which it was predicated (negligence rather than wilful and wanton misconduct) must be interpreted as holding that a rule designed to protect the participants can be employed as indicating the standard of ordinary care, and its breach as being evidence of negligence."

Plaintiff contends that this view is supported by Stewart v. D. & R. Welding Supply Co., in which a baseball umpire sued for injuries received when he was struck by a bat ring which flew from the bat of a player who was taking practice swings. The complaint, which charged only wilful and wanton misconduct, was dismissed as not stating a cause of action. There was no violation of a safety rule involved, as there was in Nabozny, and it was argued by defendant on appeal that (1) plaintiff had no cause of...