Waugh v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

Decision Date01 March 2012
Docket NumberNos. 1–10–2653,1–10–2662,1–10–3410.,1–10–2885,s. 1–10–2653
Citation966 N.E.2d 540
Parties Lisa WAUGH, as Surviving Spouse of Michael Patrick Waugh, Deceased, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Patrick Waugh, and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Joseph Waugh, Jordan Waugh and Jameson Waugh, Minor Children, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, and Donna Turek, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Mark Turek, Deceased, Defendants (Donna Turek, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Mark Turek, Deceased; Morgan Stanley and Company, Inc., et al., Counterplaintiff–Appellant and Cross–Appellee; Randall D. Repke, Independent Executor of the Estate of Kenneth Knudson, Deceased; H.K. Golden Eagle, Inc.; Sybaris Clubs International, Inc.; Galt Airport, L.L.C. ; and Recurrent Training Center, Inc. ; Arr-ow 2, Inc., d/b/a Glass Simulator Center ; Gene Littlefield Advanced Simulator Systems, d/b/a Glass Simulator Center ; Howard D. Levinson; and Hark Corporation, Counterdefendants–Appellees and Cross–Appellants). Jennifer E. Garland, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Scott A. Garland, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. T.W. Smith Engine Company, Inc., a Corporation, et al., Defendants (Howard Levinson and Hark Corporation, Defendants–Appellees; Randall Repke, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Kenneth Knudson, Deceased, Counterplaintiff and Cross–Appellant; Donna Turek, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Mark Turek; Morgan Stanley and Company, Incorporated; Morgan Stanley DW, Incorporated; Counter/Defendants, Recurrent Training Center, Inc. ; Arr-ow 2, Inc., d/b/a Glass Simulator Center ; and Gene Littlefield Advanced Simulator Systems, d/b/a Glass Simulator Center, Counterdefendants and Cross–Appellees). Lisa A. Waugh, as Surviving Spouse of Michael Patrick Waugh, Deceased, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Patrick Waugh, and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Joseph Waugh, Jordan Waugh, and Jameson Waugh, Minor Children, Plaintiff, v. Morgan Stanley and Company, Incorporated and The Estate of Mark Turek, Defendants (Morgan Stanley and Company, Incorporated, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, Howard D. Levinson and Hark Corporation, et al., Third–Party Defendants and Appellees). Lisa A. Waugh, as Surviving Spouse of Michael Patrick Waugh, Deceased, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Patrick Waugh, and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Joseph Waugh, Jordan Waugh, and Jameson Waugh, Minor Children, Plaintiff, v. Morgan Stanley and Company, Incorporated, and The Estate of Mark Turek, Defendants (Morgan Stanley and Company, Inc.; Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, Howard D. Levinson and Hark Corporation, et al., Third–Party Defendants–Appellees).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael G. McQuillen, Paula L. Wegman, Austin W. Bartlett, Steven L. Boldt, Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP, Edward J. Matushek III, Bridget G. Longoria, Matushek, Nilles & Sinars, LLC, Chicago, for Appellants Morgan Stanley & Co. and Estate of Mark Turek.

Clifford Law Offices (Richard F. Burke, Jr., Robert P. Sheridan, of counsel), Chicago, for Appellant Jennifer Garland.

Alan L. Farkas, Michael S. McGrory, SmithAmundsen, LLC, Chicago, for Cross-Appellant the Estate of Kenneth Knudson.

William F. DeYoung, Loretto M. Kennedy, Sean M. Conaghan, Chuhak & Tecson, PC, Norman J. Lerum, Norman J. Lerum, PC, Chicago, for Appellees Howard D. Levinson and Hark Corporation.

Charles R. Barnett, III, Barnett Law Offices, PC, Lake in the Hills, for Appellee Recurrent Training Cener, Inc.

Justice FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The instant cause involves multiple actions stemming from claims brought following a fatal airplane crash. Appellants Morgan Stanley and Company, the estate of Scott Garland, and the estate of Mark Turek appeal from orders of the trial court granting partial summary judgment to appellees Howard Levinson and Hark Corporation on all claims alleging educational malpractice. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by characterizing their claim as sounding in the tort of educational malpractice rather than ordinary negligence. Counterdefendant-appellee Recurrent Training Center, Inc., challenges this court's jurisdiction of this cause and asks that we dismiss the cross-appeal filed against it as untimely. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 These consolidated appeals stem from a fatal plane crash. On January 30, 2006, Mark Turek, the pilot in command of a Cessna 421B aircraft,1 and three passengers, Kenneth Knudson, Scott Garland, and Michael Waugh, were en route from a Kansas airport to the Palwaukee Municipal Airport in Wheeling, Illinois, following a business trip. As Turek piloted the Cessna 421B for landing at the airport, the aircraft crashed, killing all four occupants on board.

¶ 4 Prior to the occurrence, Turek received flight simulator training from defendant Arr-ow II, Inc., flight instruction from defendant Recurrent Training Center (Recurrent), and a five-hour flight observation and instruction from defendant Levinson. Multiple wrongful death and contribution actions were commenced subsequent to the incident, and those actions were later consolidated for discovery at the circuit court. The Waugh, Knudson, and Garland plaintiffs all filed complaints against multiple defendants, including Morgan Stanley and Turek. Defendant/third-party plaintiff Morgan Stanley filed third-party complaints and counterclaims for contribution in the Waugh, Knudson, and Garland actions against defendants/third-party defendants Levinson and Hark. Defendants/counterplaintiffs Levinson and Hark filed a counterclaim for contribution against Arr-ow, alleging negligent instruction.

¶ 5 In their complaints, the plaintiffs alleged, in pertinent part, that their decedents' deaths were proximately caused by the negligence of Turek and Morgan Stanley, as well as other parties. Allegations included that Morgan Stanley's employee, Turek, piloted the aircraft in a negligent manner and that Morgan Stanley was vicariously liable for Turek's negligence. In its third-party complaint and counterclaims for contribution, Morgan Stanley, along with other parties, alleged that Arr-ow and Recurrent (flight schools) negligently provided flight training to Turek, which contributed to the crash.

¶ 6 Morgan Stanley and the other parties also alleged that Levinson, who provided Turek with in-flight instruction on the accident aircraft, negligently failed to adequately and properly train and instruct Turek as to how to operate the aircraft. They alleged that Hark was vicariously liable for Levinson's negligent training.2 Defendant Turek also filed counterclaims for contribution against Levinson and Hark.

¶ 7 Prior to January 2006, Turek was fully licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fly twin-engine aircraft, including the accident aircraft. From January 6 through January 9, 2006, Turek completed a flight training course with Recurrent to transition from his Baron B55 twin-engine plane to the Cessna 421B. Previous to taking this course, Turek had 1,284.05 hours of total flight experience, including over 1,050 hours in multi-engine aircraft. Turek had piloted a Cessna 421B aircraft for over 29 hours. At the time he completed the Recurrent course, Turek had been an FAA-licensed pilot for nine years. There is no argument made that Turek was not properly qualified to pilot the subject aircraft under FAA regulations.

¶ 8 The Recurrent program, course materials, and training that Turek completed complied with FAA regulations and was FAA certified. The twin Cessna flight training device used by Turek during his training session at Recurrent was FAA certified, qualified, and calibrated, and routinely inspected by the FAA.

¶ 9 Recurrent students are experienced pilots who have obtained their FAA pilot's license and ratings. Recurrent flight instructor Kyle Lyons testified at deposition that Turek, when completing his training coursework at Recurrent, demonstrated through performance and testing that he was fully proficient, competent, and prepared to fly. He also demonstrated that he was aware of the specifics of a Cessna 421B aircraft. Specifically, Turek completed a Cessna 421B workbook which was reviewed by a Recurrent instructor to verify that Turek was familiar with all information specific to the Cessna 421B. Turek was provided with information on Cessna 421B power settings, speeds, and other procedures for operating in the landing phase of flight. Additionally, Turek's one-on-one training included operations and performance training specific to the Cessna 421B. There was no indication during the Recurrent coursework and evaluation that Turek had any difficulties with regard to descending, turning, speed, or otherwise controlling the aircraft in the airport environment. Turek was taught Cessna 421B stall speeds, proper engine operation, and fuel management.

¶ 10 In 2005, Turek successfully completed 33 hours of recurrent twin-engine instrument proficiency training with Eugene Littlefield, his instructor at Arr-ow. According to Littlefield's deposition testimony, Turek was already a qualified and proficient twin-engine pilot at that time. In Littlefield's opinion, Turek was always in control of the airplane, displayed good techniques, procedures, and cockpit management, and was a very proficient pilot. Littlefield opined that Turek was a fully trained, safe, competent, and qualified multi-engine pilot.

¶ 11 After completing training at both Arr-ow and Recurrent, Turek flew the subject aircraft for an additional five hours in January 2006 under the observation of Levinson, a partial owner of Hark, which had an ownership interest in HK Golden Eagle. Levinson testified at deposition that the purpose of the observation was for Levinson to observe Turek fly the subject aircraft and to provide the required hours to satisfy his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Garland v. Sybaris Clubs Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28 Agosto 2019
    ... ... Turek, 2 and the three passengers onboard were Garland, Knudson, and Michael Waugh. Turek and Garland 141 N.E.3d 738 435 Ill.Dec. 929 were both employees of Morgan Stanley & Co., ... ...
  • Garland v. Sybaris Club Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 16 Octubre 2014
    ... ... In the first, Waugh v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 102653, 359 Ill.Dec. 219, 966 N.E.2d 540, plaintiff ... ...
  • Christopher Stasko, Steven Nagler, Burton Citron, Peter Lorenz, Charles Jenkins, Paul Vanrid, Auto. Parts Serv. Co. v. City of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 Septiembre 2013
    ...appeal is sufficient to invoke this court's jurisdiction. Waugh v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 102653, ¶ 51, 359 Ill.Dec. 219, 966 N.E.2d 540 (“When a trial court makes a finding pursuant to Rule 304(a) that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal of a f......
  • Garland v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 12 Septiembre 2013
    ... ... For the following reasons, we affirm. [996 N.E.2d 191] [374 Ill.Dec. 744] 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 On January 30, 2006, Mark Turek, the pilot in command of a Cessna 421B aircraft, and three passengers, Kenneth Knudson, Scott Garland, and Michael Waugh, were en route from a Kansas airport to the Palwaukee Municipal Airport in Wheeling, Illinois, upon return from a business trip to meet with a prospective Morgan Stanley client. As Turek piloted the Cessna 421B for landing, the aircraft crashed, killing all four occupants on board. 6 Plaintiff's ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Pennsylvania Also Rejects Educational Malpractice, and Thus Duty-To-Train Claims
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 9 Mayo 2022
    ...schools. Grady, 2022 WL 683720, at *7-9 (discussing Moss Rehab v. White, 692 A.2d 902, 905 (Del. 1997); Waugh v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 966 N.E.2d 540, 553-54 (Ill. App. 2012); Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 796 N.W.2d 541, 553 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d, 816 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 2012), and Da......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT