Commerce Bank v. Youth Services of Mid-Illinois, Inc.
266 Ill. Dec. 735, 333 Ill.App.3d 150, 775 N.E.2d 297 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency relationship, sufficient to impose vicarious liability through respondeat superior, does not exist between a foster care agency and foster parents if the agency's supervision and control over the foster parents’ day-to-day care is limited to monitoring compliance with state licensing regulations.
Facts:
- Youth Services of Mid-Illinois, Inc. (Youth Services), a private, not-for-profit corporation, was hired by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to place foster children.
- Youth Services placed three-year-old Louise Osborn and her older brother with foster parents Sarah and Matthew Augsburger.
- Youth Services was responsible for finding foster parents, ensuring they complied with DCFS’ licensing requirements, monitoring foster children according to DCFS regulations and Illinois law, providing services, creating plans, and distributing state money to the foster parents.
- Louise Osborn died on July 29, 1993, while enclosed in a bedroom closet in the home of her foster parents, Sarah and Matthew Augsburger.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Commerce Bank, on behalf of Louise Osborn’s estate, initially sued the foster parents, Sarah and Matthew Augsburger, and Defendant Youth Services of Mid-Illinois, Inc., in the McLean County circuit court for Louise’s death.
- The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the claims against the Augsburgers, ruling they were immune from suit.
- Plaintiff appealed this dismissal, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the Augsburgers were immune from suit for negligence due to parental immunity (Commerce Bank v. Augsburger, 288 Ill. App. 3d 510 (1997), referred to as Commerce Bank I).
- Plaintiff amended its complaint to sue only Youth Services for its own negligence and for the Augsburgers’ negligence under a theory of respondeat superior.
- The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s respondeat superior claims against Youth Services but allowed the direct negligence claims against Youth Services to proceed to trial.
- A jury ultimately found Youth Services was not negligent in Louise’s death.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in preventing claims against Youth Services under respondeat superior.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to determine whether an agency relationship existed between Youth Services and Sarah Augsburger that would give rise to respondeat superior liability (Commerce Bank v. Youth Services of Mid-Illinois, Inc., No 4—98—0833 (August 10, 1999), an unpublished order referred to as Commerce Bank II).
- The case proceeded to trial against Youth Services on remand, where a jury found that Sarah Augsburger was negligent, proximately causing Louise’s death, and that an agency relationship existed between Sarah Augsburger and Youth Services, making Youth Services vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
- The jury awarded plaintiff $640,000.
- Defendant Youth Services filed posttrial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, which the McLean County circuit court denied.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agency relationship exist between a private foster care agency and foster parents, such that the agency can be held vicariously liable for the foster parents' negligence, when the agency's control over the foster parents' day-to-day supervision is limited to monitoring compliance with state licensing requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cook
No, an agency relationship does not exist between Youth Services and the Augsburgers because Youth Services' control over the foster parents was limited to monitoring compliance with DCFS licensing standards, which is insufficient to establish an agency relationship for purposes of vicarious liability. The court explained that an agency relationship requires the principal to have the right to control the manner in which the agent performs work, with the right to control being the predominant factor. While factors like the right to discharge and control over various aspects of care are considered, the Illinois Supreme Court in Nichol v. Stass previously held that a diverse and comprehensive set of requirements for foster parents were merely licensing requirements and did not establish an agency relationship with the State. Because Youth Services was essentially acting in DCFS's place, and its interactions and control over the Augsburgers were dictated by and limited to monitoring these same DCFS regulations regarding meals, sanitation, bedding, sleeping arrangements, allowance, supervision, and corporal punishment, there was no evidence that Youth Services exercised control beyond these licensing requirements. Therefore, the jury's finding of an agency relationship was not supported by the evidence and could not stand.
Dissenting - Justice Myerscough
Yes, an agency relationship did exist between Youth Services and the Augsburgers because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that Youth Services exerted control over the foster parents beyond merely subjecting them to DCFS licensing regulations. The dissent argued that testimony from Youth Services' executive director and foster family supervisor demonstrated substantial independent control. Specifically, Youth Services drafted a unique "treatment plan" for the children that the foster parents were required to follow, which included specific directives on living conditions, nutrition, and clothing, and Youth Services could discharge parents for non-compliance with this plan. Youth Services staff visited the home multiple times a week, monitored care for "simple things," and ensured appropriate supervision. Furthermore, Youth Services had an "absolute right to discharge" the Augsburgers at any time for any reason. Most critically, the dissent pointed to Youth Services' "illegal policy" for reporting allegations of abuse and neglect, where they would investigate questionable cases themselves and decide whether to call the DCFS hotline, rather than immediately reporting all allegations as required by law. This independent policy demonstrated control beyond mere regulatory compliance. Therefore, the jury’s finding of an agency relationship should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case refines the application of agency principles in the context of foster care, clarifying that standard regulatory oversight does not automatically create a principal-agent relationship for vicarious liability. It reinforces the Illinois Supreme Court's stance in Nichol, requiring evidence of specific control over the manner of day-to-day performance beyond mere compliance with licensing standards. This decision makes it more challenging to hold private foster agencies vicariously liable for the negligence of foster parents, emphasizing that agencies must exert a level of control akin to an employer-employee relationship, not just a contractual agreement to meet state regulations, for such liability to attach. It limits the scope of respondeat superior in this specialized area, potentially shifting the burden more directly onto individual foster parents or requiring more direct negligence claims against agencies.
