Gvillo v. DeCamp Junction, Inc.
959 N.E.2d 215, 355 Ill. Dec. 187 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The contact sports exception, which generally limits liability for injuries in contact sports to willful and wanton misconduct, does not apply to non-participant organizational defendants whose alleged negligence relates to field setup decisions rather than in-game subjective actions.
Facts:
- DeCamp Junction, Inc., and its employee, Jim Moultrie, organized an informal amateur softball league each summer.
- Gregory Gvillo was a coach and first baseman for a team in the league, and Aron Klenke was a coach and player on another team.
- During a playoff game, Klenke hit a ground ball, and Gvillo stretched to catch the throw while keeping his foot on first base.
- Klenke collided with Gvillo while attempting to reach first base, resulting in Gvillo suffering a fracture and nerve damage.
- DeCamp Junction and Moultrie provided only a single 15-inch-by-15-inch white base in fair territory and did not provide a running lane, contrary to Amateur Softball Association (ASA) safety rules designed to prevent collisions.
- Gvillo had played weekly games at DeCamp Junction from May until the September accident, always with the single-base setup, and had mentioned a 'close call' at first base to Moultrie earlier in the season.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Gvillo filed a complaint against DeCamp Junction, Inc., Jim Moultrie, and Aron Klenke in the trial court, alleging, in relevant part, that DeCamp Junction and Moultrie negligently set up the softball field.
- DeCamp Junction and Moultrie filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the contact sports exception applied and that no willful and wanton misconduct occurred, and that ASA rules were inapplicable to an informal league.
- The trial court initially denied the motion for summary judgment.
- DeCamp Junction and Moultrie then filed a motion to reconsider, specifically arguing that the contact sports exception was applicable to organizational defendants and that they did not have a duty to use the ASA's double-base system.
- The trial court granted the motion to reconsider and the motion for summary judgment in favor of DeCamp Junction and Moultrie.
- Gregory Gvillo (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.
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 the contact sports exception, which limits liability to willful and wanton misconduct for participant injuries, apply to non-participant organizational defendants whose alleged negligence involves providing an unreasonably dangerous playing field due to setup decisions?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Chapman
No, the contact sports exception does not apply to non-participant organizational defendants whose alleged negligence arises from field setup decisions, as such decisions do not involve the immediate, subjective, in-game judgments the exception is designed to protect. The court applied the test from Karas v. Strevell, which considers the circumstances of the sport and its inherent risks, the relationship of the parties, and whether broader liability would harm or alter the sport. The court distinguished this case from Karas, where the exception applied to coaching and officiating, noting that decisions in setting up a softball field are not as inherently subjective or split-second as in-game decisions. The court reasoned that imposing ordinary negligence liability for proper field setup would not deter vigorous participation, especially since the Amateur Softball Association (ASA) rules for double bases and running lanes promote safety without hindering competitive play. Therefore, organizational defendants are not shielded by the contact sports exception under these circumstances. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the informal league adopted the ASA rules and whether Klenke's collision was intentional, precluding summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the contact sports exception in Illinois, particularly as it applies to non-participant organizational defendants. It establishes a critical distinction between in-game, subjective decisions (e.g., coaching, officiating) and pre-game, static setup decisions for premises liability. This ruling suggests that venue operators, league organizers, and similar entities may face a higher duty of care (ordinary negligence) for premises-related safety issues in contact sports than for actions directly impacting the flow of play. Future cases will likely analyze the 'nature of the allegations' against non-participant defendants to determine if their actions are akin to active participation or passive field/equipment provision, impacting the standard of care applied.
