An Illinois appeals court has reversed and remanded the decision of a trial court, delivering a victory to a high school football player, who sued a school district for negligence after he was injured during a football camp, allegedly, because of the negligence of the school district.
On July 26, 2006, plaintiff Gene Peters was participating in a summer football camp sponsored by the defendants, Herrin Community Unit School District No. 4 and the Board of Education of Herrin Community Unit School District No. 4. Peters and the rest of the participants sprinted from the locker room to the football field. But Peters, an incoming sophomore at Herrin High School, tripped on a bumper in the shot-put pit area, which caused him to fall and sustain a back injury. He would later sue, alleging that the bumper was located on a route that the players were instructed to take by the coaches.
The instant opinion concerns the plaintiff’s two-count third amended complaint, which was filed on November 21, 2012, alleging a single count of negligence and a single count of willful and wanton conduct. In the negligence count of plaintiff’s third amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges he was unable to see the bumper because the defendants negligently maintained the football facility by failing to mow the grass and cut the weeds. In the willful and wanton count, the plaintiff alleges the defendants’ failure to mow the grass was conduct performed “with reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff.”
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that “the record contained no evidence that the plaintiff was instructed by his coaches to run a particular route from the locker room to the football field causing the plaintiff to run into the bumper, and held that the defendants’ conduct did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct.” It also cited state laws around governmental immunity.
The plaintiff appealed.
“The record in this case contains a genuine issue of material fact, as it is not clear and free from doubt whether the coaches instructed the players to run in a particular area when running from the locker room to the football field,” held the appeals court. “Because we find a genuine issue of material fact after review of the record concerning the route players took when running to the football field and whether the players were directed by the coaches to run in a particular direction, the defendants should not have been entitled to summary judgment.
“The direction the players ran and whether the players were directed to run a certain direction is important for determining whether immunity pursuant to section 3-106 is applicable. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s finding of no genuine issue of material fact and remand with directions to consider the direction and course taken by the football players when running from the locker room to the football field, and whether coaches employed by defendants instructed the players to run in a particular direction.”
Even though the appeals court had determined that it was going to reverse, it felt compelled to “briefly address” the defendants’ argument that they were immune from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act “because the football field was used for recreational purposes rather than educational purposes.”
“… There are several matters the trial court should consider in determining whether the summer football camp was educational or recreational.”
Among them, noted the appeals court, was the plaintiff’s admission that “playing football was an extracurricular activity that was not mandatory and for which he did not receive school credit. Also, the plaintiff paid a fee to participate in the football camp that took place in the summer months outside of the school calendar year. The trial court should consider these factors in determining whether the football camp was recreational or educational and whether the football facility where the camp took place was intended or permitted to be used for recreational or educational purposes.”
Gene Peters v. Herrin Community Unit School District NO. 4; App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist.; NO. 5-13-0465, 2015 IL App (5th) 130465; 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 132; 2/27/15
Attorneys of Record (for appellant) John Womick, Chad Orso, Womick Law Firm, Chtd., Herrin, IL. (for appellees) John J. Kurowski, Candice C. Kusmer, Kurowski Shultz, LLC, Swansea, IL.
