SPT 515 Legal Issues in Sport Industry

David Cummings
Fall 2017
Assignment 3

Tanari v School Directors

69 Ill.2d 630 (1977); 373 N.E.2d 5

Facts:
Flora Tanari (P) is suing School Directors of District No. 502 (D) for ordinary negligence
where she received injuries to her foot at a high school football game held on school
property.
P was given a complimentary season pass by D to attend the game and brought three other
individuals.
P noticed, on the way to her seat, a crowd of boys and girls playing near the northwest end of
the stadium and next thing she knew she had been knocked to the ground by a big boy who
fell on top of her. Boy was never identified, got up, apologized, and left the scene.
P experienced immediate pain in her foot and seeked medical attention and was diagnosed as
a fracture of the third, fourth and fifth metatarsals.
Unable to work for a period of six weeks due to the injury and at the time of trial, two years
after the incident, she still suffered occasional pain and swelling in her foot.
Athletic director of high school testified he had hired off-duty policemen and teachers to
keep order at all football games conducted by the D.
Worked for the school for seven years preceding the accident and had attended every home
football game held at the school.
He responded in the affirmative when asked if he had seen boys and girls playing tag, or
horse playing and roughing it up in the area in question.
Further testified he had tried to correct the children but as soon as he left they were back
playing.
He knew from personal observation a policeman was in the area in question on the night of
the incident.
Procedural History:
The trial court allowed Ds motion for a directed verdict on the sole ground that P was a
licensee on the Ds premises and that there was no proof whatsoever that defendant had
breached its duty to refrain from willful and wanton misconduct. On appeal, the appellate
court agreed with the trail court in favor of D, but stated that it preferred that such ruling be
based upon the immunity granted by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees
Tort Immunity Act. Appealed to Supreme Court of Illinois, opinion of Mr. Justice
Underwood filed November 30,1977.
Issue:
If P attends an event with a complimentary ticket are they considered an Invitee or Licensee?
Is D, then liable for ordinary negligence once duty is determined, based on the situation at
hand?
Holding:
Yes, the supreme court reversed both decisions and said P should have been considered an
Invitee. Both decisions reversed and remanded for new trial with trial court.
Rule:
An individual attending an event held at someones property will be considered an invitee if
they are attending for the owners benefit, regardless if the ticket was purchased or obtained
as a gift from D as an invitation to attend.
Reasoning:
The Supreme court ruled that section 24-24 of the School Code is not applicable here in view
of the absence of any in loco parentis relationship between the injured P and the certificated
employees of the D school district who allegedly failed to exercise proper supervision.
Therefore, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that section 2-24 of the School Code does not
provide any basis for affirmance of the trail courts decision. An invitee a visitor who comes
upon premises at the invitation of the owner in connection with the owners business or
elated activity and licensees are person who have not been invited to enter upon the owners
premises and who come there for their own purposes and not those of the owner. However,
their presence is condoned by the owner, which distinguishes them from trespassers. The trial
court decided the P was a licensee since they had not purchased a ticket, but rather attended
using a complimentary season pass, therefore there was no commercial benefit to the D
school district. The Supreme Court of Illinois disagreed with the decision, because of the
definitions above. The appellate court often looked at the surrounding circumstances to
determine whether there was a mutuality of interest in the subject on which the visitors
business relates. In the Supreme Courts opinion, the complimentary pass issued to P was
tantamount to an express invitation to attend the football game, and there can be no question
about the fact at the time of her injury, P was acting within the scope of the invitation. In this
case the P was expressively invited and encourage to attend football stadium and support its
team. It would be illogical to conclude that a person the Ds attending a game using a
complimentary pass provided by the school district should be owed a lesser duty of care than
a person who had purchased a ticket. In our view, both person should be owed the same duty
of reasonable care, and we so hold. Decision was reversed and remanded to trial court for
new trial.
Dissent:
Mr. Justice Goldenhersh, concurring: I agree that section 24-24 of the School Code is not
applicable to this case, and I concur in the holding that the judgments of the appellate and
circuit courts must be reversed and the cause remanded.
In our dissent in Kobylanski, Mr. Chief Justice Ward, Mr. Justice Schaefer and I said:
although not made an issue in these appeals, we consider it appropriate to comment upon
one additional matter. The majority appears to accept as settled law that a parent is not liable
for injuries to his child absent willful and wanton misconduct if, as the majority states the
rule in this jurisdiction is that a parent is not liable for injuries to his child absent willful and
wanton misconduct it should rest on some ground more sound than the repetitive misreading
of Nudd v. Matsoukas.