Keller v. Mols
108 Ill. Dec. 888, 156 Ill. App. 3d 235, 509 N.E.2d 584 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Illinois, participants in contact sports are liable for injuries to co-participants only for willful or wanton conduct, not for mere negligence, regardless of whether the game is formally organized or coached.
Facts:
- Fourteen-year-old Robert Keller was playing goalie in a game of floor hockey.
- Robert was playing with his younger brother and two neighbor boys on the patio of Ralph Mols, Jr.'s parents.
- Thirteen-year-old Ralph Mols, Jr., shot a plastic puck during the game.
- The plastic puck struck Robert Keller in the eye.
- Robert was not wearing any protective equipment while playing goalie.
- The parties had played the game under similar conditions more than 20 times prior to the incident without any injuries to participants.
- The plastic puck had been lifted above floor level many times during prior games.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Keller, through his mother and next friend, Judith Keller, filed a complaint in the trial court (Circuit Court of Cook County) naming Ralph Mols, Jr., and his parents as defendants.
- Plaintiff claimed Ralph was negligent in shooting a puck without protective equipment and that his parents were negligent in permitting the game and failing to warn of dangers.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ralph Mols, Jr.'s parents.
- Plaintiff appealed the judgment for the parents, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, declining to impose a duty of care on the parents (Keller v. Mols, 129 Ill. App. 3d 208, 472 N.E.2d 161 (1984)).
- The trial court then granted summary judgment for defendant Ralph Mols, Jr., on the negligence claim, ruling that the appellate court's prior decision was the 'law of the case' regarding the application of the 'reckless or wanton' standard from Oswald v. Township High School District No. 214.
- Plaintiff amended his complaint to allege willful and wanton conduct by Ralph Mols, Jr.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ralph Mols, Jr., on the amended complaint, stating there was 'not a scintilla' of evidence supporting a claim of willful or wanton conduct.
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 'willful and wanton' standard of care, rather than the 'mere negligence' standard, apply to injuries sustained during an informal, unorganized, and uncoached game of floor hockey between minors, thereby precluding recovery on a negligence claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the willful and wanton standard of care applies to injuries sustained during informal contact sports, precluding recovery for mere negligence. The court clarified that the Oswald standard, which limits liability to willful or wanton conduct in athletic competition involving bodily contact, is not restricted to formally structured, organized, or coached sporting events. The core inquiry is whether the activity is a 'contact sport.' Since floor hockey is commonly understood as a contact sport, and the participants in this case adapted ordinary hockey rules, Robert Keller's participation as goalie in a contact sport meant he was precluded from recovering on a negligence claim as a matter of law. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support a claim of willful and wanton conduct. The parties had played the game under similar conditions over 20 times without injury, and the plastic puck had been lifted above floor level many times. Robert's own participation as goalie without a mask indicated that the players perceived no significant danger from the puck. Ralph's action was characterized as a normal goal-scoring attempt, not a reckless disregard for safety. Therefore, the trial court's grants of summary judgment were proper.
Concurring - Justice Rizzi
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Justice Freeman
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the 'willful and wanton' standard of care for contact sports participants in Illinois, explicitly extending it beyond formally organized events to informal games among youths. It emphasizes that the inherent nature of an activity as a contact sport, rather than its organizational structure or coaching, dictates the standard of liability. This ruling reinforces the principle of assumption of risk in recreational contact sports, setting a higher bar for recovery and potentially reducing litigation for minor injuries in such contexts, while still allowing claims for truly reckless or intentional harm.
