## Facts

- Terry Downing worked as a pit crew member for a driver competing in a midget-car racing event on a dirt oval track at Joliet Memorial Stadium.
- United Auto Racing Association (UARA) sanctioned the event, and Aaron Willis (doing business as Joliet Racing Association) leased and operated the premises and ran the racing program.
- Before the race, cars ran warm-up laps. A midget car driven by Guess began “bicycling,” meaning its inside wheels lifted off the surface while cornering, which several witnesses viewed as a dangerous condition.
- Downing and others were near the pit area in an exposed location along the pit side/straightaway area where fencing existed but guardrail protection did not fully extend.
- Downing contended that those responsible for track safety should have responded to the bicycling by removing (black-flagging) Guess’s car from the track and by better protecting or controlling the exposed pit-area location (including extending the guardrail and assigning a pit steward to clear people from the area).
- Guess’s car again bicycled, the driver lost control, the car flipped, and it skidded toward the pit-side area, striking Downing and pinning him against a fence. Downing suffered severe injuries.
- Downing sued UARA and Willis, alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct in track preparation, safety measures, and supervision. Guess was also a defendant at trial.
- Defendants argued the suggested safety measures were not reasonably required and would not have prevented the injury, and they presented evidence that pit crew members (including Downing) had been warned not to stand where Downing was hit.
- The jury found UARA and Willis liable for willful and wanton misconduct, found Guess not negligent, and awarded Downing $1.5 million in damages. The jury assessed 59% comparative fault to Downing, reducing the award to $615,000.
- UARA and Willis appealed. Downing cross-appealed, challenging the reduction of damages based on comparative fault where defendants were found willful and wanton.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support submitting, and sustaining, the jury’s finding of willful and wanton misconduct against UARA and Willis for track and pit-area safety and supervision.
2. Whether an exculpatory release associated with racing activities could bar (or otherwise defeat) Downing’s claim, particularly where the verdict was based on willful and wanton misconduct, and whether the release could be used to establish primary assumption of risk.
3. Whether Illinois comparative fault permits a plaintiff’s ordinary negligence to reduce damages awarded for a defendant’s willful and wanton misconduct (the issue raised in Downing’s cross-appeal).

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Downing.
- The court held the record supported the jury’s finding that UARA and Willis engaged in willful and wanton misconduct based on the claimed awareness of the hazard (including the bicycling and the exposed area) and the failure to take additional safety steps.
- The court held the release did not bar the action for willful and wanton misconduct and could not be used to establish primary assumption of risk as a complete defense.
- The court upheld the jury’s reduction of damages for comparative fault, concluding that a plaintiff’s ordinary negligence may be compared against a defendant’s willful and wanton misconduct under Illinois comparative fault rules.
- The court left intact the jury’s 59% allocation of fault to Downing and the resulting $615,000 judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Willful and wanton misconduct in Illinois involves more than ordinary negligence and may be shown by reckless disregard for others’ safety, including actual or constructive knowledge of a high probability of serious harm.
- Whether conduct amounts to willful and wanton misconduct commonly depends on fact questions such as knowledge of a dangerous condition, the likelihood of serious injury, and the availability of reasonable safety measures.
- Exculpatory releases generally cannot exonerate a defendant from liability for willful and wanton misconduct as a matter of public policy.
- A release cannot be used to establish primary assumption of risk to eliminate duty where the claim proceeds on willful and wanton misconduct; however, a plaintiff’s decision to encounter a known risk may be considered as comparative fault (secondary assumption of risk concepts folded into fault allocation).
- Under Illinois comparative fault, a plaintiff’s ordinary negligence may reduce damages even when the defendant’s misconduct is willful and wanton, given the classification of willful and wanton conduct as distinct from intentional torts.

## Conclusion

Downing upheld a jury verdict finding that the race sanctioning body and track operator acted with willful and wanton misconduct in connection with track and pit-area safety after a bicycling midget car flipped into an exposed area and injured a pit crew member. The appellate court also held that an exculpatory release did not bar recovery for willful and wanton misconduct and that Illinois comparative fault allowed the jury to reduce the plaintiff’s damages by 59% based on his own negligence.


Downing v. United Auto Racing Association, 570 N.E.2d 828 (1991)