TROY BADALI v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

This cause comes before the Court on a tort claim filed by Claimant for damages arising when he slid headfirst during a baseball team tryout. Claimant alleges the Respondents imposed a headfirst slide requirement and failed to properly train Claimant in the use of the technique.

The principal issues are 1) whether the Respondents were negligent for imposing a headfirst slide requirement 2) whether the Respondents were negligent for failing to properly train Claimant 3) whether the Respondents actions were the proximate cause of Claimant's injuries.

In the fall of 1993, Claimant was preparing to tryout for The University of Illinois at Chicago (hereinafter referred to as UIC) baseball team as a walk-on player. The tryout period lasted approximately three weeks and Claimant participated in practices with the team. The practices included drills and instruction on various baseball techniques including hitting, throwing and fielding. The Claimant was never given an instruction on sliding techniques.

On September 11, 1993 the Claimant participated as a UIC player in a practice game against St. Joseph's. Immediately prior to the start of the game, the UIC Coach, Dean Refakes informed players, including Claimant, that he had a mandatory headfirst slide role, and warned that a player who failed to use the headfirst slide would be penalized by running or would be cut from the team.

Claimant testified that he was shocked by the coach's directive and discussed it with another player who confirmed the rule. Claimant also testified that he was scared by the prospect of sliding headfirst because he had never done it before. Claimant did not communicate his concerns to the coach. Coach Refakes testified that had the Claimant communicated his concerns, he would have excused Claimant from the requirement.

In the course of the game Claimant was on first base when Coach Refakes signaled Claimant to steal second base. Claimant ran toward second base and began to dive about two feet from the base. Claimant's right arm slammed into the left leg of the second baseman that was covering the base. Claimant's arm was twisted behind him and his shoulder was pulled from the socket. The Claimant believes he was injured because he initiated the slide too late and because of the collision. Coach Refakes stated that the opposing player blocked the base contrary to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules. Coach Refakes claims that this action by the opposing player led to Claimant's injury.

Claimant suffered a shoulder injury that required two surgical procedures to repair. Claimant's medical bills totaled approximately $31,000.00. Claimant continues to complain of pain and loss of motion in his shoulder.

The law is clear that in order to sustain his burden of proof for a negligence claim, the Claimant must establish 1) by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondents owed Claimant a duty, and 2) that Respondents breached that duty and that Respondent's negligence was the proximate cause of Claimant's injury.

In regard to the Respondents duty owed to Claimant, Respondents contend that the University's duty in the context of athletic contests should be limited to the willful and wanton standard. Respondent urges the Court to consider and rely on an Illinois Supreme Court case, which establishes willful and wanton to be the standard applied to sports injuries under the School Code. The Supreme Court consolidated and reviewed two lawsuits brought against school districts for injuries suffered by students while participating in gym class. Plaintiffs alleged negligent failure to provide proper instruction, supervision and failure to test students level of skill. Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education, 63 Ill.2d 1165 at 168, 347 N.E.2d 705 (1976).

The Court held that in the sports injury context the plaintiff must establish willful and wanton misconduct to establish liability against educators. Applying this standard, the Court held that the defendant school districts were not liable for injuries suffered by a student performing gymnastics who was not properly supervised and for another student injured while performing on a trampoline without previously establishing her skill level. See Geimer v. Chicago Park District, 272 Ill.App.3rd629, 659 N.E. 2d 585 (1st Dist. 1995) which was decided under the Tort Immunity Act.

If we determine that the standard appropriately applied is willful and wanton conduct, then we must find in favor of the Respondents as there is no evidence to support a finding of willful and wanton misconduct on behalf of the Respondent.

However, the Illinois School Code cases cited by the Respondent pertain to matters where the schoolteachers are standing in loco parentis. That doctrine, however, relates to matters related to the discipline in and the conduct of the schools and school children. In this case, the Claimant is a college student, not a grade school or high school student. Therefore, the doctrine is inapplicable.

In Larson v. State of Illinois, 50 Ill.Ct. Cl. 1 (1997) this Court found that the Local Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act does not apply to the State or its employees. Therefore, we are precluded from applying the willful and wanton standard in this matter.

The issue then becomes whether the imposition of a headfirst slide rule constitutes negligence in and of itself and/or whether Respondent was negligent for imposing a mandatory headfirst slide without determining the skill level of the student participants.

Claimant first contends that the headfirst slide is inherently more dangerous than a feet first slide technique. The testimony presented by two baseball experts, a medical doctor, and the sliding injury statistics in the record do not conclusively establish that the headfirst slide is inherently more dangerous than a feet first technique. There are no NCAA rules banning the headfirst slide.

However, the evidence did establish that sliding is a dangerous aspect of the game and proper training as to sliding technique is very important to prevent injury and that evidence leads us to Claimant's second contention.

Claimant argues that Respondent's failure to properly train Claimant, or at least to determine his skill level, or familiarity with the headfirst technique, constitutes negligence.

Respondent's expert, Coach O'Reilly, an experienced college baseball coach testified that in the tryout process a coach makes certain assumptions about a player's ability based on his high school experience. He noted that the purpose of tryouts is to evaluate skills and concluded that Coach Refakes should not be criticized by his failure to pre-qualify the Claimant's skills.

In this case, Claimant practiced with the UIC team for several weeks before the incident.

Although the team practiced and was instructed on many aspects of the game, no attention was paid to sliding technique. Immediately prior to the beginning of the first practice games, Coach Refakes stated the mandatory headfirst slide rule without inquiring as to the players familiarity or capability to execute the slide.

Coach Refakes could have inquired if anyone was unfamiliar with the headfirst technique. Claimant could also have volunteered his lack of knowledge or inability to use this technique. However, Claimant decided to remain silent. Further, Claimant chose to attempt the slide. While as Claimant argues, a mere inquiry as to the players ability to perform this task would have taken but a moment, Claimant could have taken various avenues to express his unfamiliarity with this type of slide. We believe a college student to impose the ability to make decisions. The Respondents actions, or inaction, fail to constitute negligence.

In Savino v. Robertson, 273 IllApp.3d 811, 816, 652 N.E.2d 1240, 210 Ill.Dec. 264 (1995), the Court discussed a hockey player's assumption of the risk during even the warm-up stage prior to an actual game. Hockey is a contact sport regardless if it is a warm-up or an actual game. The plaintiff assumed the risks and dangers created by the activity.

In this case, the facts demonstrated that the Claimant understood and accepted the dangers of the sport of baseball. He knew and understood the dangers of sliding into a base. Claimant chose to play in a game in which physical contact among participants is inherent in the conduct of the game.

We decline to find that Coach Refakes rule pertaining to headfirst slides was negligent. Each case must be decided on its own facts. To find Coach Refakes negligent we would have to ignore Claimant's decision to slide headfirst. This raises the standard of care to a degree not required by the law. The Claimant alleges that the injury complained of was not due to the negligence of another participant in the game. The Claimant alleges that his injury was due to Coach Refakes actions. We do not agree.

Because we find that there was no breach of duty, we need not discuss the issues of proximate cause, assumption of risk or comparative negligence.

The Claimant has failed to carry his burden of proving that negligent conduct in breach of a duty owed to Claimant caused his injuries. As such, the claim for damages is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this claim is dismissed and forever barred.

RAUCCI, C.J.