By Rob Harris, ESQ
We can debate whether our adversarial legal system is the best way to get at the truth, but it’s pretty clear why it’s as expensive as it is.
Just take a look at the monumental case of Parrish v. Espolt, et al,, pending in the Madison County (Illinois) Circuit Court.
The plaintiff, Laura Parrish, claims to have been injured when she was ejected from a golf cart driven by Nick Espolt in the parking lot of the Spencer T. Olin Golf Course.
To obtain recourse for her alleged injuries, Ms. Parrish’s attorneys have sued just about everyone and everything but the kitchen sink.
Naturally, Driver Espolt is a defendant, asserting that he “recklessly operating the golf court and failing to reduce his speed to avoid an accident.”
She has named the golf course as a defendant, accusing it “of failing to provide adequate instructions and supervision in the operation of these golf carts.”
And let’s not forget the City of Alton and the staff and employees of the golf course. According to Ms. Parrish, they “allowed business invitees to operate the carts in an area that they knew would be too congested to safely operate them and recklessly allowed carts to be operated by individuals that had been drinking alcohol.”
At least the golf cart manufacturer has not been named as a defendant—at least not yet.
And, since claims beget defenses and counterclaims, those sued are now pushing back:
“Espolt answered the complaint on July 20, arguing that Parrish’s alleged injuries were the result of her own negligence.
“He also argues that her claims are barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act. The two were at the golf tournament at the ‘request and encouragement of their employer in the hope of deriving economic benefit from their participation in a client’s sponsored event,’ the answer states.
“[The golf course owner] STO LLC filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 6, seeking to dismiss [the claims against it], which describe the defendant’s conduct as ‘reckless’ and ‘willful and wanton.’
“There are no allegations … that STO LLC exercised any direction or control over the person who was driving the cart from which the plaintiff fell,’ the motion states.
STO LLC argues that [the claims] contains ‘bare allegations’ that it was ‘reckless’ and guilty of ‘willful and wanton’ misconduct.
“‘However, it is the factual allegations that determine whether a claim for willful and wanton misconduct has been stated, not the adjectives that the pleader attaches to the defendant’s alleged conduct.’
“‘According to the factual allegations of the complaint, STO, LLC was guilty of nothing more than allowing people to drive golf carts on its parking lot. There are no factual allegations that would lead a trier of fact to conclude that STO, LLC either deliberately intended to harm the plaintiff or displayed an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the plaintiff’s welfare,” the motion states.
“STO LLC also answered the complaint on Aug. 6, arguing that Parrish’s alleged damages were caused by her own negligence and carelessness for failing to properly sit within the golf cart, failing to sit in a balanced position within the golf cart and failing to keep her feet on the floor of the golf cart while it was in motion, the motion states.
And, if that’s not enough, the golf course owner has brought a counterclaim against Driver Espolt and Espolt’s employer, Dynegy Midwest Generation LLC. The course owner “claims Espolt was operating the golf cart in a reckless manner, operating the golf cart in too fast a manner for conditions and failing to reduce his speed to avoid an accident.” As for Dynegy, the course owner claims that ”Espolt was an employee of Dynegy and his operation of the golf cart was done within the scope of his employment.”
For its part, the City of Alton effectively says “we had nothing to do with this,” arguing that the plaintiff and Espolt—the only two people in the golf cart—”were the sole proximate causes of the incident because the plaintiff failed to stay seated in a moving golf cart.” In addition, the City claims it can’t be sued in any event, under a legal doctrine that protects municipalities from such claims, since “the plaintiff’s alleged injuries occurred on recreational property.”
Through this sausage making process, justice presumably will be served.
Harris is an attorney and founder of http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/. He can be reached at rharris@golfdisputeresolution.com
