Landrum v. Gonzalez
629 N.E.2d 710, 257 Ill. App. 3d 942, 196 Ill. Dec. 165 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participants in contact sports, including informal softball games, are only liable for injuries to other participants if their conduct is wilful and wanton or demonstrates a reckless disregard for safety, rather than mere ordinary negligence.
Facts:
- Norman Landrum worked at a large Chicago bakery where a committee of employees hosted monthly summer picnics at Winchester forest preserves, often including informal 16-inch softball games.
- These softball games were played on a grassy area using a makeshift diamond and equipment brought by attendees, without protective gear or special rules beyond those generally applicable to softball.
- On Saturday, September 24, 1988, Landrum and Joseph Gonzalez played on opposing teams in one of these softball games; Landrum was playing first baseman and Gonzalez was a baserunner on first base.
- During the game, the batter hit the ball to left field, which was then overthrown toward the infield, rolling toward Landrum who had moved to back up the throw.
- As Landrum was bending down to field the overthrown ball, Gonzalez, while advancing from first to second base, made physical contact with Landrum by pushing him.
- As a result of this contact, Landrum stumbled, fell on his shoulder, and suffered serious injury.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 18, 1990, Norman Landrum filed a two-count tort action against Joseph Gonzalez in the trial court, alleging wilful misconduct in count I and simple negligence in count II.
- Gonzalez filed a motion for summary judgment on count II (negligence), which the trial court granted.
- The parties proceeded to a bench trial on count I (wilful misconduct).
- Following the presentation of Landrum’s evidence, the trial court entered judgment for Gonzalez pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1110.
- Landrum appealed both the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment on count II and its decision finding Gonzalez did not act wilfully and wantonly to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First 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 liability for injuries sustained during the course of an informal softball game require a showing of wilful and wanton misconduct, or may it be predicated upon ordinary negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Giannis
Yes, liability for injuries sustained during an informal softball game requires a showing of wilful and wanton misconduct, rather than mere ordinary negligence. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, applying the standard established in Nabozny v. Barnhill (1975), which requires wilful and wanton conduct or a reckless disregard for safety for injuries arising in athletic competitions. This standard is necessary to protect "vigorous participation in sports" by preventing ordinary negligence claims for the inevitable contact inherent in such activities. Precedent from Oswald v. Township High School District No. 214 (1980) and Keller v. Mols (1987) clarified that the relevant inquiry is whether the activity is objectively a "contact game," not the game's formality, level of organization, or the players' subjective expectations regarding contact. Unlike activities such as downhill skiing (Novak v. Virene, 1991) where contact is not inevitable, softball inherently involves physical contact, such as tagging, player collisions, and being struck by errantly thrown balls. Therefore, the "Nabozny rule" is appropriately applied to the game of softball. The court further found that the trial court's determination that Gonzalez did not act wilfully or wantonly was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as his action in running into Landrum could reasonably be interpreted as merely an attempt to reach second base, with the resulting injury being an inherent risk of the game.
Concurring - Presiding Justice Egan
Concur.
Concurring - Justice McNamara
Concur.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies the "contact sport" doctrine in Illinois, extending the wilful and wanton standard of care beyond formally organized sports to informal, recreational activities like softball. It emphasizes an objective analysis of whether a sport inherently involves physical contact, thereby shielding participants from ordinary negligence claims for injuries arising from the inherent risks of play. This ruling provides a higher bar for liability in athletic competitions, thus promoting vigorous participation without excessive litigation risk. Future cases will continue to rely on this objective test to categorize activities as contact sports and apply the heightened standard of care.
