DORIS MCBEATH v. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS (2014)

OPINION

This claim is before the Court upon a recommendation from the assigned commissioner following an evidentiary hearing regarding Claimant's action against Respondents, University of Illinois at Chicago (“UIC”) and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, to recover damages for her personal injuries sustained while she was attending a concert held at the UIC Forum. Claimant has filed a four-count complaint against Respondents, alleging two counts of negligence and two counts of willful and wanton misconduct. Essentially, Claimant alleges that certain UIC police officers were negligent and utilized excessive force against Claimant when they handcuffed Claimant and removed her from the concert area of the UIC Forum. For the reasons set forth herein, Claimant's claim is denied.

Facts

On May 11, 2008, Claimant, along with her daughters and some friends, attended a concert at the UIC Forum, featuring R&B soul singer Jaheim. Claimant's assigned seat for the concert was in the second row to the side of the center stage, with her daughters assigned behind her in the third row. When Jaheim, who was the last to perform, was on stage, Claimant moved from her assigned seat to the front of the stage where she was blocking the view of other patrons. After Claimant's position in front of the stage was prolonged, the other patrons became visibly agitated. Claimant was approached by a UIC security officer and was told by the officer that she was blocking the view of other patrons who were becoming upset. The officer accordingly asked Claimant to return to her seat. Claimant admittedly refused to comply with the officer's request. Claimant was then told again by the officer to return to her seat and admonished that if she refused, she would be removed from the facility. Claimant again admittedly refused to comply with the officer's order. Claimant was then forcibly removed by the officer from the front of the stage and was unwillingly escorted out of the concert area. While Claimant was being escorted from the stage, Claimant became irate and excited and was ultimately handcuffed by the officer and another security guard who came to the officer's aid as back up. Claimant was then led by the officers from the concert area to the lobby of the UIC Forum.

While in the lobby, Claimant began to experience shortness of breath, and chest and shoulder pains. At such time, the handcuffs were removed, an ambulance was called and Claimant was taken to the UIC Emergency Room where she was given oxygen and a shot for her shoulder pain. Claimant received follow up treatment from her primary care doctor who diagnosed Claimant with a strain or sprain of the right shoulder. Claimant underwent physical therapy for her shoulder until August of 2008.

Legal Analysis

In this matter, Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents' agents were negligent or used excessive force constituting willful and wanton misconduct. Duerst v. State, 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 186 (1998); Simmons v. State, 44 Ill.Ct.Cl. 304 (1991); Robinson v. State, 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 364 (1994). To prevail on a negligence claim, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents owed her a duty, that Respondents negligently breached that duty, that the Claimant suffered damages and that the Respondents' negligence was the cause of that damage. Brown v. State, 57 Ill.Ct.Cl. 214 (2005). In order to succeed on a claim based on willful and wanton misconduct, the Claimant must establish that the Respondents' agents were not only negligent, but engaged in a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of others. Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, 224 Ill. 2d 213, 864 N.E.2d 176 (2007); Doe v. Chicago Board of Education, 213 Ill. 2d 19, 820 N.E.2d 418(2004).

In the case at hand, Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents breached their duty of care to Claimant. Although the testimony before this Court illustrates that some force was utilized to remove Claimant from the concert, the force utilized by the UIC officers was not the type of force likely to cause great bodily harm and therefore was reasonable under the circumstances. See Duerst v. State, 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 186 (1998). Claimant, by her own admission, was resistant to the officers' orders. Claimant was told on more than one occasion to return to her seat and was specifically told that she must return to her seat or she would be removed from the concert. Claimant's failure to return to her seat was causing the crowd behind her to get upset and agitated. As such Claimant's own conduct was jeopardizing her own safety and the safety of others and therefore justified the UIC officers' use of force. Moreover, Claimant failed to present any evidence that the UIC officers' conduct was in violation of standard police protocol given the circumstances. This being the case, Claimant has failed to sustain her burden of proof on a negligence theory.

It thereby follows that Claimant has also failed to sustain her burden for willful and wanton misconduct. As stated above, the UIC officer's response to Claimant's resistance and failure to cooperate by removing her from the concert was reasonable and cannot be deemed the type of conduct that shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the Claimant. To the contrary, the UIC officers' removal of Claimant from the concert most likely prevented the concert crowd from becoming unruly, thereby protecting Claimant along with the other concert attendees.

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Claimant's claim is denied and this matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

STORNIO, J.