Pfister v. Shusta
212 Ill. Dec. 668, 657 N.E.2d 1013, 167 Ill. 2d 417 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participants in contact sports are not liable for injuries caused by ordinary negligence, but only for injuries caused by willful and wanton or intentional misconduct. This exception applies to both formally organized sports and informal, spontaneous athletic activities where physical contact is inherent to the game.
Facts:
- Sean Pfister and Terry Shusta were college students at Illinois State University.
- While waiting in a dormitory lobby with two other students, they spontaneously began kicking a crushed aluminum soda can.
- The students divided into two teams, with two players on each team, and established informal goals against the lobby walls.
- The activity involved physical contact similar to that in soccer or hockey.
- During the game, Pfister allegedly pushed Shusta in an attempt to gain control of the can.
- Shusta then allegedly responded by pushing Pfister.
- As a result of Shusta's push, Pfister fell and, while trying to break his fall, put his left hand and forearm through the glass of a wall-mounted fire extinguisher case.
- Pfister sustained injuries to his hand and forearm.
Procedural Posture:
- Sean Pfister filed a complaint alleging negligence against Terry Shusta in the circuit court of McLean County (trial court).
- Shusta filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the contact sports exception barred the negligence claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shusta, holding that Pfister failed to allege willful and wanton misconduct.
- Pfister, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment order to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's order in favor of Shusta.
- Shusta, as petitioner, was 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 the contact sports exception, which requires a showing of willful and wanton misconduct for liability, apply to an injury sustained during an informal, spontaneous game of kicking a crushed soda can in a college dormitory lobby?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McMorrow
Yes. The contact sports exception applies to informal and spontaneous athletic activities, like the can-kicking game here, where physical contact is inherent. Therefore, a participant is liable only for injuries caused by willful and wanton or intentional misconduct, not ordinary negligence. The court reasoned that focusing on whether an activity is a 'contact sport' is more practical than analyzing the specific 'rules' of a disorganized game. Participants in games where physical contact is anticipated and virtually inevitable assume a greater risk of injury from negligent conduct. Applying a simple negligence standard would chill participation in many sports by exposing players to liability for common, incidental contact, like fouls in basketball.
Dissenting - Justice Miller
No. The proper standard of care should be based on the rules and usages of the game, which would allow a claim for negligence to proceed. This dissent argues that the key inquiry should be whether the conduct causing the injury was sanctioned by the rules of the pastime, as this approach reflects the participants' consent and expectations. A participant consents to contacts permitted by the rules, but not to those prohibited by them. The negligence standard is flexible enough to be adapted to the circumstances of a sports contest, and the appellate court's framework, which focused on the game's rules, correctly analyzed the scope of the participants' consent.
Dissenting - Justice Harrison
No. The standard of care for participants in contact sports should be ordinary negligence. This dissent argues that applying an ordinary negligence standard would not have a chilling effect on sports participation, as negligence is not a necessary part of vigorous play. The negligence standard is remarkably flexible, allowing a jury to determine what constitutes reasonable care under the specific circumstances of a contact sport. Juries are capable of distinguishing between conduct that is acceptable within a game and conduct that is negligent, and players should be expected to exercise ordinary care on the playing field.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of the 'contact sports exception' in tort law by applying it to informal, spontaneous activities, not just organized sports. By rejecting a negligence standard in this context, the court raised the bar for plaintiffs injured during such activities, requiring them to prove a higher level of culpability (willful and wanton misconduct). This precedent reinforces a public policy that favors encouraging athletic participation by limiting liability for accidental injuries inherent in such activities, thereby making it more difficult for injured participants to recover damages in informal recreational settings.
