Karas v. Strevell
75 A.L.R. 6th 663, 884 N.E.2d 122, 227 Ill. 2d 440 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a full-contact sport, a participant is liable for injuring a co-participant only if they intentionally cause injury or engage in conduct totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport. A mere violation of a safety rule is insufficient to establish liability for either participants or organizational supervisors.
Facts:
- Benjamin Karas was a member of the Barrington High School Hockey Club’s junior varsity team.
- Russell Zimmerman and Joseph Strevell played for the opposing Naperville Central Redhawk Hockey Association's junior varsity team.
- Both teams belonged to the Amateur Hockey Association Illinois, Inc., which had a rule prohibiting bodychecking players from behind.
- To reinforce this rule, the word 'STOP' was sewn onto the back of each player's jersey.
- On January 25, 2004, during an organized game, Zimmerman and Strevell struck Benjamin Karas from behind near the boards.
- The contact caused Karas's head to strike the boards, resulting in serious head and neck injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Karas, on behalf of his son Benjamin, filed a complaint against players Russell Zimmerman and Joseph Strevell and several hockey organizations in the circuit court of Du Page County (trial court).
- All defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of willful and wanton claims against the organizations but reversed the trial court's dismissal of the claims against the players and the negligence and conspiracy claims against the organizations.
- The player and organizational defendants, as petitioners, were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 conduct that violates a safety rule in a full-contact sport, such as checking from behind in ice hockey, constitute willful and wanton misconduct sufficient to create liability for player and organizational defendants when the conduct is not alleged to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burke
No. In full-contact sports like ice hockey, liability for injuring a co-participant arises only if the participant intentionally causes injury or engages in conduct 'totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.' The traditional willful and wanton standard, specifically its 'conscious disregard for safety' prong, is unworkable for full-contact sports where dangerous contact is inherent and a fundamental part of the game. Applying that lower standard would have a chilling effect on vigorous participation and fundamentally alter sports like hockey and football. The court adopts the standard from Knight v. Jewett, recognizing that rule violations are an inherent and anticipated part of contact sports and are, by themselves, insufficient to establish liability. This heightened standard also applies to organizational defendants (leagues, officials, coaches), as imposing an ordinary negligence standard for coaching and officiating decisions would invite a surfeit of litigation. Plaintiff's complaint fails because it alleges only a rule violation without additional facts showing the conduct was totally outside the ordinary range of activity, such as occurring away from the puck or after a whistle.
Concurring - Justice Kilbride
While I agree with the judgment, the majority is wrong to conclude that participants in full-contact sports may consciously disregard the safety of co-participants. The standard of 'totally outside the range of ordinary activity' is not a new standard of care but is merely a further explanation of what constitutes reckless or willful and wanton conduct under the existing Pfister framework. The majority's conclusion that 'conscious disregard for safety' is inherent in full-contact sports is incorrect, as rules, protective equipment, and social norms are all designed to protect player safety. Furthermore, when applying this standard to organizational defendants like coaches, the age and experience of the youth participants are critical factors that must be considered, suggesting a higher duty of care is owed to minors.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modifies Illinois tort law for sports injuries by creating a new, more stringent standard for liability in 'full-contact' sports, distinguishing them from other 'contact' sports. By adopting the 'totally outside the range of ordinary activity' standard from California's Knight v. Jewett, the court raises the bar for plaintiffs, making it much more difficult to succeed in lawsuits arising from injuries caused by rule-breaking but otherwise foreseeable conduct. The ruling provides greater liability protection to players and organizations, aiming to prevent a chilling effect on sports like hockey and football, but it simultaneously increases the pleading burden for injured plaintiffs, who must now allege specific facts demonstrating that the conduct was extreme and not just a typical, albeit illegal, part of the game.
Unlock the full brief for Karas v. Strevell