A state appeals panel has said the Justice Park District must pay $18.5 million to the family of a 6-year-old boy who drowned in a swimming pool at a day camp, despite the suburban park district's claims that the judge refused to allow them to explain key legal concepts to jurors.
On Sept. 3, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court shot down the Justice Park District's multi-pronged appeal of the verdict.
The estate of six-year-old Michal Duda, represented by Andrezj Kolodjiez, sued the park districts in Justice and Bridgeview. Duda died in a public pool owned by the Bridgeview Park District, during a day camp operated by the Justice Park District in 2014.
The Bridgeview district settled with Duda’s family for $3 million, leaving Justice responsible for the remainder of the $21.5 million awarded by a jury.
Justice appealed for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. They argued that while their workers may have been negligent, its employees’ conduct did not rise to the level of willful and wanton - a level needed to justify the verdict.
The Justice Park District said the court should have allowed it to explain to the jury the difference between negligence and willful and wanton behavior, and to enter evidence supporting a finding of negligence.
The pool had three certified lifeguards on duty, and there were three camp counselors assigned to watch campers between the ages of 5-7. Campers were given a swim test before going in the pool, which determined Duda could not swim. He was still allowed in the shallow end of the pool – which was deep enough that his head was underwater when he was standing in it – as long as he was wearing water wings on his arms, according to the narrative and background provided in the appellate decision. Camp staff testified Duda repeatedly took off his water wings.
The Justice Park District camp counselors were trained in CPR, and the camp communicated regularly with families. The park district argued these and other safety precautions show it had a conscious regard for campers’ safety.
The district claimed it should have been able to present evidence of negligence and that the jury instructions should have included information on the difference between negligence and willful and wanton conduct.
The appellate court, however, found Cook County Judge Marguerite Anne Quinn was within her discretion in allowing plaintiff's request to block any discussion of negligence. The suit alleged willful and wanton conduct, not negligence, and the park district argued the judge allowed the plaintiffs to confuse the jury to present two theories of liability when only one was at issue.
“Plaintiff did not pursue a negligence claim,” Appellate Justice Bertina Lampkin wrote in the First District Appellate Court order. “The relevant issue for the jury to decide was whether defendants’ conduct was willful and wanton. …Justice (Park District) concedes that the court allowed it to present testimony, photographs, video and documents to show that its conduct … did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct.”
Justice Park District also argued that the court should not have allowed expert testimony that suggested Duda was conscious and suffering before he drowned. Since there were no eyewitnesses nor video evidence of the drowning, the park district argued the jury should not have been presented with a claim for pain and suffering. The appellate court found the testimony was within permissible limits, as the expert was testifying to the typical drowning experience.
The park district's final issue of appeal was the verdict amount, which it claimed was excessive. It compared the judgment to other child wrongful death cases, which the park district said should have limited the jury's verdict between $2 million and $4 million.
“The amount of a verdict is generally at the discretion of the jury,” Justice Lampkin wrote. “A damage award is not subject to scientific computation.”
The court pointed out that other child wrongful death cases can be found with much higher verdicts, and that cases cannot be compared to one another to determine the “right” award amount.
Justice Robert E. Gordon and Judge Eileen O’Neill Burke concurred with the court’s judgment. The appellate order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23, limiting its use as precedent.
The plaintiffs were represented by the Clifford Law Offices, of Chicago.
Justice Park District was represented by the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago.