Gerrity v. Beatty

• Decision Date: 20 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 49493,49493
• Citation: 373 N.E.2d 1323,71 Ill.2d 47
• Parties: , 15 Ill.Dec. 639 Matthew Patrick GERRITY, Appellant, v. Robert BEATTY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 1323

373 N.E.2d 1323

71 Ill.2d 47, 15 Ill.Dec. 639

Matthew Patrick GERRITY, Appellant, v. Robert BEATTY et al., Appellees.

No. 49493.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 20, 1978.

As Modified On Denial of Rehearing March 30, 1978.

Eugene I. Pavalon, of Asher, Greenfield, Goodstein, Pavalon & Segall, Ltd., Chicago (Irving Stenn, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

James H. Canel, Chicago, for appellee.

Jane Carfagno Clark, Springfield, amicus curiae for Illinois Ed. Ass'n.

UNDERWOOD, Justice.

On October 20, 1973, the 15-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Patrick Gerrity, suffered severe injuries while making a tackle in a junior varsity football game conducted by Downers Grove South Community High School where he was enrolled as a sophomore. He thereafter filed a multicount personal injury action seeking damages from the manufacturer of the football helmet he was wearing, his attending physician, the hospital in which he received treatment, the city of Downers Grove, whose fire department personnel transported him to the hospital, and the defendant school district. This appeal is concerned solely with count VI of the complaint, which alleged ordinary negligence on the part of the defendant school district in furnishing plaintiff with an ill-fitting and inadequate football helmet. The trial court granted the district's motion to strike count VI on the ground that under section 34-84a of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 122, par. 34-84a), as construed by this court in Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education (1976), 63 Ill.2d 165, 347 N.E.2d 705, and as applied to the circumstances set forth in the complaint, the plaintiff could not recover damages unless he alleged and proved willful and wanton conduct on the part of school personnel. We allowed plaintiff's 302(b) motion to transfer to this court his appeal under Rule 304(a) (58 Ill.2d Rules 302(b), 304(a)), the trial court having found there to be no just reason for delaying enforcement and appeal.

As a consequence of the public policy considerations favoring the promotion of family harmony and the prevention of intrafamily litigation and strife, it has been recognized as a general rule in this State that children may not maintain actions against their parents for mere negligence but may do so only in the case of willful and wanton misconduct. (Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education (1976), 63 Ill.2d 165, 347 N.E.2d 705; Mroczynski v. McGrath (1966), 34 Ill.2d 451, 216 N.E.2d 137; Nudd v. Matsoukas (1956),7 Ill.2d 608, 131 N.E.2d 525.) In 1965, the General Assembly enacted sections 24-24 and 34-84a of the School Code, which had the effect of extending this limited form of parental immunity to teachers and other certificated educational employees. The former section applies to cities with populations of less than 500,000 while the latter applies to cities with populations greater than 500,000. The pertinent parts of each section are identical and provide as follows:

"Teachers and other certificated educational employees shall maintain discipline in the schools. In all matters relating to the discipline in and conduct of the schools and the school children, they stand in the relation of parents and guardians to the pupils. This relationship shall extend to all activities connected with the school program and may be exercised at any time for the safety and supervision of the pupils in the absence of their parents or guardians.

Nothing in this Section affects the power of the board to establish rules with respect to discipline. " Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 122, pars. 24-24, 34-84a.

In Kobylanski, this court considered two consolidated cases in which students who had suffered injuries while participating in gym class activities sought to recover damages from the defendant school districts on the grounds that the injuries resulted from ordinary negligence on the part of the gym teacher in failing to provide proper instruction and supervision during gym class. One of the questions was whether sections 24-24 and 34-84a of the School Code should be construed to confer the status of parent or guardian upon teachers solely in disciplinary situations or whether such status also applied to the facts in those cases, which admittedly arose from nondisciplinary, supervisional activities. We concluded that by its terms the statute intended to confer in loco parentis status in nondisciplinary as well as disciplinary situations and that the plaintiff students must therefore prove willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the physical education teacher to recover for the injury suffered in gym class.

In this case count VI of plaintiff's complaint alleged that the defendant school district carelessly and negligently:

"(a) Permitted and allowed the plaintiff to wear an ill fitting and inadequate football helmet;

(b) Refused to furnish adequate and proper football equipment upon the plaintiffs request;

(c) Furnished and provided the plaintiff with an ill fitting and inadequate football helmet when it knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known said helmet was liable and likely to cause plaintiff injury."

In support of its decision allowing the district's motion to strike count VI, the trial court found that the Kobylanski decision "does not distinguish between discipline, supervision...