Knapp v. Hill

• Decision Date: 03 November 1995
• Docket Number: Nos. 1-94-4376,1-94-4382,No. 228,D,228,s. 1-94-4376
• Citation: 276 Ill.App.3d 376,212 Ill.Dec. 723,657 N.E.2d 1068
• Parties: , 212 Ill.Dec. 723, 105 Ed. Law Rep. 240 Robert F. KNAPP, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert J. Knapp, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael S. HILL, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant (Bremen Community Unit School Districtefendant/Appellee and Counter-Defendant/Appellee).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1068

657 N.E.2d 1068

276 Ill.App.3d 376, 212 Ill.Dec. 723,

105 Ed. Law Rep. 240

Robert F. KNAPP, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert J. Knapp, deceased Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael S. HILL, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant (Bremen Community Unit School District No. 228 Defendant/Appellee and Counter-Defendant/Appellee).

Nos. 1-94-4376, 1-94-4382.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fifth Division.

Nov. 3, 1995.

Timothy T. McLaughlin, Ltd., Oak Lawn, for appellant.

Larry R. Wikoff, Brody, Gore, Fineberg & Wikoff, Ltd., Chicago, for Hill.

Francis J. Leyhane III, Condon & Cook, Chicago, for Bremen.

Justice THOMAS J. O'BRIEN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Robert F. Knapp, individually and as Special Administrator of the estate of Robert J. Knapp (Robert), appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing certain counts of plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice. The circuit court held that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against Bremen Community Unit School District No. 228 (school district) under the theory of respondeat superior. The circuit court also found that the school district's failure to adequately supervise students did not constitute wilful and wanton misconduct as a matter of law. We affirm.

Because the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to § 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992)), the factually sufficient allegations in the complaint are taken as true.

On May 1, 1992, Robert and defendant Michael Hill (Michael) were students at Bremen High School and classmates in an automotive repair class. In accordance with school policy, some of the class members furnished their own automobiles for use in course instruction. Each of these students was responsible for bringing his or her automobile into the shop area at the beginning of class and removing it at the end of class. Only those students who furnished a vehicle for the class were permitted to leave the classroom.

On the day in question, three students, including Michael and Charles Yohfeld, provided their own cars for use in class. As class ended, the teacher told the students to clean-up the premises before repairing to his desk to fill out paperwork. Yohfeld, meanwhile, proceeded to drive his car from the shop area and return it to the school parking lot. Despite the fact that Robert was not permitted to leave the classroom at this time, he nevertheless hid in the back seat of Yohfeld's car. After reaching the parking lot, Robert walked back to the classroom.

As Robert returned, Michael was backing his car down the ramp adjacent to the classroom's overhead door. When Michael stopped at the bottom of the ramp to change gears, Robert jumped on the hood of the car "in such a manner that he was lying on his stomach across the hood, with his hands holding onto that portion of the hood closest to the front windshield * * * with his feet extending across the hood diagonally toward the [passenger side] headlight." Michael immediately accelerated and drove his car through the school parking lot at a high rate of speed. He then abruptly hit the brakes, causing Robert to be thrown from the hood of the car. When Robert fell, he struck his head on the pavement in front of the automobile and was rendered unconscious. Robert was taken to a local hospital where he died four days later as a result of the injuries sustained on May 1, 1992.

On May 2, 1994, plaintiff filed a six-count second amended complaint against Michael and the school district. In count III, plaintiff sought recovery from the school district for wrongful death under the theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiff claimed that the driver of the vehicle, Michael, acted as an agent of the school district because he was returning the vehicle to the school's parking lot at the request of his teacher.

In count V, plaintiff asserted that the school district was directly liable for its own wilful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiff maintained that the school district should have properly supervised the students and otherwise prevented "horseplay".

Finally, in count VI, plaintiff requested damages pursuant to the Family Expense Act. (750 ILCS 65/15 (West 1992).) Under this count, plaintiff, individually, repeated the allegations of wilful and wanton misconduct and sought reimbursement for medical expenses and funeral costs.

The school district thereafter moved to dismiss each of these counts on the grounds that plaintiff (i) failed to factually allege that Michael was an agent of the school district and (ii) failed to factually allege that the school district acted wilfully and wantonly. The circuit court granted the motion with prejudice, and plaintiff appealed.

I

On appeal, plaintiff initially submits that Michael was an agent for the school district for the limited purpose of bringing his car into the shop area at the start of class and returning to the parking lot at the end of class. Plaintiff points out that the school district, vis-a-vis the shop teacher, was responsible for directing the method and manner of removing automobiles from the shop area, and thus exercised the requisite control to establish a principal-agency relationship. Moreover, plaintiff argues, "it is reasonable to infer that, if it so desired, the SCHOOL DISTRICT could have established a policy that required the shop teacher, or some other school employee, to drive the cars in and out of the shop area. * * * Control of the process of providing these educational tools was the exclusive province of the SCHOOL DISTRICT."

Although we agree with plaintiff that the school district did in fact exercise control over its students, including the method and manner of removing automobiles for the shop area, we nevertheless find that such control alone is insufficient to establish a principal-agent relationship under the circumstances alleged in the complaint.

A principal-agent relationship is a legal concept founded upon a consensual and fiduciary relationship between two parties. (Gunther v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1984), 126 Ill.App.3d 595, 598, 82 Ill.Dec. 31, 467 N.E.2d 1104.) The test of agency is whether the purported principal has the right to control the manner and method in which the work is carried out by the agent and whether the agent is capable of subjecting the principal to personal liability. (Illinois Nurses Association v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1990), 196 Ill.App.3d 576, 582, 143 Ill.Dec. 469, 554 N.E.2d 404, appeal denied, 132 Ill.2d 545, 144 Ill.Dec. 257, 555 N.E.2d 376.) Ordinarily, the key consideration in determining whether an agency relationship exists is whether the principal had the right to control the activities of the agent. Anderson v. Boy Scouts of America (1992), 226 Ill.App.3d 440, 443-44, 168 Ill.Dec. 492, 589 N.E.2d 892, appeal denied, 145 Ill.2d 631, 173 Ill.Dec. 1, 596 N.E.2d 625.

We have no quarrel with the general proposition that the determinative factor in an agency relationship often revolves around the element of "control". In the instant case, however, we are faced with the somewhat unique situation where the "control" necessary to support the creation of a principal-agent relationship is the same "control" implicit in the nature and the undertaking of the education process.

Educators, of course, are entrusted with a certain degree of autonomy in discharging their obligations as teachers, including the "maintenance of a sound learning atmosphere" as well as the "orderly conduct of schools." (Gerrity v. Beatty (1978), 71 Ill.2d 47, 51, 15 Ill.Dec. 639, 373 N.E.2d 1323.) Indeed, the Illinois School Code provides that teachers and other certified educational employees "stand in the relation of parents and guardians to the pupils." (105 ILCS 5/24-24 (West 1992); see also, 105 ILCS 5/34-84a (West 1992).) The Code further declares that 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." (105 ILCS 5/24-24 (West 1992); see also, 105 ILCS 5/34-84a (West 1992).) In addition, a teacher's control over the activities of his or her students is not limited merely to the teacher's disciplinary and supervisory authority in the school setting. It encompasses, rather, the entire range of the student's course of instruction.

By nature, then, the education process imposes upon the instructor a degree of control and supervision over the manner and method of the student's work. In this case, the teacher directed Michael to bring his automobile into the shop area at the beginning of class and to remove it at the end of class. This was done not as a manifestation of the school district's intent to vest its students with authority to manage some affair on behalf of the school district, thereby allowing the student to become an agent of the school district; rather, it was done as part and parcel of the student's course of instruction.

Plaintiff concedes as much in his complaint. In count III, plaintiff alleges that "the act of bringing the automobile into the shop, and removing it, was a necessary part of the course of instruction being conducted by the School District, and a part of the regularly scheduled class activity." He also acknowledges that "the removal of the automobiles from the shop class was a necessary aspect of furnishing the automobiles for the purpose of instructing the students in automobile mechanics." The "control" element here, therefore, arising as it does from the fulfillment of duties inherent in the teaching function, manifests a teacher-student relationship exclusive of the principles of agency law. Thus, the ordinary concepts of agency and respondeat superior do not apply in this case. See Booker v. Chicago Board of Education (1979), 75...