Kobylanski v. Chicago Bd. of Ed.

• Decision Date: 29 March 1976
• Docket Number: 47454,Nos. 47084,s. 47084
• Citation: 347 N.E.2d 705,63 Ill.2d 165
• Parties: Barbara KOBYLANSKI, a minor, Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees. Suzanne CHILTON, Appellee, v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 207, MAINE TOWNSHIP, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 705

347 N.E.2d 705

63 Ill.2d 165

Barbara KOBYLANSKI, a minor, Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees.

Suzanne CHILTON, Appellee, v. COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 207, MAINE TOWNSHIP, Appellant.

Nos. 47084, 47454.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 29, 1976.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1976.

Baker & McKenzie, Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey, John W. Dondanville, Daniel J. Cheely, and Norman J. Barry, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Cook County School District No. 207.

William J. Harte, Ltd., Jerome E. Cihak and Winkler & Fornelli, Ltd., Chicago (William J. Harte and Donald J. Kerwin, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Barbara Kobylanski.

Albert F. Hofeld, Ltd., Chicago (William J. Harte, Ltd., and Vincent Getzendanner, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee Suzanne Chilton.

Morrill, Koutsky, Chuhak & Upton, Chicago (Roland C. Upton and Philip J. McGuire, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee Chicago Board of Education.

Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago (Stephen A. Milwid, Richard E. Mueller, and John J. Berwanger, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee James Lecos.

KLUCZYNSKI, Justice.

This appeal involves two consolidated cases presenting the common issue of whether teachers and school districts can be held liable for injuries to students resulting from their allegedly negligent conduct, or whether the greater burden of wilful and wanton misconduct must be proved in order to impose liability. Subsidiary issues raised by the various parties will be considered where they are necessary for a resolution of these cases.

In cause No. 47084, plaintiff, the father of Barbara Kobylanski, brought suit on her behalf against the Chicago Board of Education and James Lecos, a physical education instructor at Mark Twain Elementary School, for injuries she sustained during her seventh grade gymnasium class. Kobylanski, who was 13 years old at the time of the accident on November 18, 1968, suffered spinal injuries when she fell while attempting to perform a 'knee hang' on steel rings suspended from the ceiling of the gymnasium. Prior to the accident, Lecos had instructed the students on the performance of this exercise. Kobylanski's amended complaint, which was filed under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967 ch. 85, par. 1--101 Et seq.), alleged, Inter alia, that the defendants negligently failed to provide proper instruction and supervision. The defendants answered the complaint, denying the allegations of negligence and setting forth as an affirmative defense section 34--84a of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 122, par. 34--84a), which, they maintained, required a plaintiff to prove wilful and wanton misconduct in order to recover. Following the presentation of plaintiff's case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, and subsequently denied the plaintiff's post-trial motion for a new trial. The trial court found that Kobylanski had failed to prove the defendants were guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct. On appeal to the appellate court, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed (Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education, 22 Ill.App.3d 551, 317 N.E.2d 714), and we granted plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal. There is no contention made that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish wilful and wanton misconduct.

Cause No. 47454 involves a suit initially filed by the father of the then minor Suzanne Chilton against Cook County School District 207 and Linda Walton, a physical education instructor, for injuries she sustained on April 25, 1968. Chilton was a 15-year-old freshman at Maine Township High School East and was injured during her physical education class while performing a trampoline maneuver known as a 'front drop.' As in the Kobylanski case, Chilton suffered spinal injuries. Prior to the accident, Chilton received personal instructions from Walton on the performance of this maneuver, since she had previously experienced difficulty in performing it. The second amended complaint, which was predicated upon negligence, was filed by plaintiff, Suzanne Chilton, at the close of the evidence at trial in October 1972. Count I alleged, basically, that District 207 failed to provide proper supervision, failed to require increased supervision as trampoline accidents occurred more frequently, and failed to test beginners in order to determine who was capable of taking a trampoline course. Count II charged that Walton failed to properly supervise the class, and forced Chilton to perform the maneuver after it became obvious that she lacked confidence and had considerable difficulty in performing it. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Chilton only against District 207. Following the entry of judgment on the verdict, the District filed a post-trial motion, but this motion was denied as were two previous motions for directed verdicts. These motions had attacked the sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint, arguing that it failed to allege that District 207 and Walton were guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct as required by section 24--24 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 122, par. 24--24). The trial court refused to instruct the jury that a wilful and wanton standard was applicable rather than a negligence standard, and expressed the belief that section 24--24 applied only to teacher-student disciplinary situations. On appeal to the appellate court, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed (Chilton v. Cook County School District No. 207, 26 Ill.App.3d 459, 325 N.E.2d 666), and we granted the District's petition for leave to appeal. Chilton does not contend that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find wilful and wanton misconduct had it been instructed as to the applicability of that standard.

The statutes relevant to these appeals are sections 24--24 and 34--84a of the School Code. The former section applies to cities with a population of less than 500,000 and the latter, to cities with a population greater than 500,000. The pertinent parts of the two statutes are identical, and they provide:

'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.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 122, pars. 24--24 and 34--84a.

These statutes confer upon educators the status of parent or guardian to the students. None of the parties to these appeals disputes the fact that a parent is not liable for injuries to his child absent wilful and wanton misconduct. See Mroczynski v. McGrath, 34 Ill.2d 451, 455, 216 N.E.2d 137; Nadd v. Matsoukas, 7 Ill.2d 608, 619, 131 N.E.2d 525.

Kobylanski and Chilton concede that the statutes confer the status of parent or guardian upon teachers, but they maintain that they apply solely in disciplinary situations and not to the facts of the present appeals, which arose from nondisciplinary matters. In support of this position, they point out that the pertinent statutes are found in those portions of the School Code which deal with the employment and duties of teachers, and that the statutes are titled 'Maintenance of discipline' (section 24--24) and 'Teachers shall maintain discipline' (section 34--84a). Defendants, Chicago Board of Education, Lecos and District 207, contest this interpretation of the statutes and argue that the statutes clearly apply to the present situations, as illustrated by the third sentence of sections 24--24 and 34--84a, which provide that '(t)his relationship shall extend to all activities connected with the school program.'

While the issue before this court is one of first impression, it has previously been considered in four appellate court cases involving suits against teachers, schools or school boards. In each, the appellate court held that section 24--24 requires a plaintiff to prove wilful and wanton misconduct in order to impose liability on educators. (See Fustin v. Board of Education, 101 Ill.App.2d 113, 242 N.E.2d 308 (student player injured by an opposing player during basketball game); Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District No. 12, 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780 (student kicked by fellow student while class was in session); Mancha v. Field Museum of Natural History, 5 Ill.App.3d 699, 283 N.E.2d 899 (student assaulted by youths unaffiliated with his school while on an excursion to the Field Museum in Chicago); and Merrill v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 8 Ill.App.3d 910, 290 N.E.2d 259 (student injured while cutting lengths of wire for are class as directed by teacher).) In Merrill, the plaintiff attempted to distinguish the applicability of section 24--24 by arguing that the statute did not relate to non-disciplinary situations and private schools. The appellate court briefly dismissed this argument by concluding that the activity in which the student was engaged was part of the school program and fell within the purview of the statute. We note that while Kobylanski and Chilton attempt to distinguish Fustin, Woodman and Mancha from the present factual situations, contending that the prior three cases involved disciplinary matters, a review of these cases discloses that they involved allegations of improper supervision and failure to supervise school activities.

Reviewing the language of the statutes, we find that they were intended to confer the status In loco parentis in nondisciplinary as well as disciplinary matters. The second sentence in each of the two statutes provides that '(i)n all matters relating to the discipline in And conduct of the schools and the school children, (teachers) stand in...