## Facts

- John Savino and Scott Robertson were adult teammates in an amateur hockey league.
- During pre-game warm-ups, Robertson took a shot toward the net; the puck missed and struck Savino near his right eye.
- Savino suffered a severe injury, losing about 80% of vision in that eye.
- Savino sued Robertson, initially alleging ordinary negligence based on failures to warn, to wait for a goalie, to follow alleged league custom, and to keep a lookout.
- Discovery showed it was routine in adult leagues for players to shoot at an open net during warm-ups; there was no written rule forbidding the practice.
- Savino admitted he had seen such shots taken without a goalie, understood there was always some risk of being hit by a puck in warm-ups, and chose not to wear a protective face mask.

## Issues

1. Whether a player injured during pre-game warm-ups must prove willful and wanton misconduct (rather than ordinary negligence) to recover from a co-participant.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record created a genuine issue of material fact that Robertson’s shot was willful and wanton misconduct.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Robertson.
- The court held the willful-and-wanton (reckless) standard governing co-participant sports injuries applies to pre-game warm-ups that are part of the athletic activity.
- The court held the evidence, even viewed in Savino’s favor, could not support a finding that Robertson acted with willful and wanton disregard for Savino’s safety.

## Legal Principles

- A participant generally cannot recover from a co-participant for sports-related injuries absent willful and wanton (reckless) conduct; ordinary negligence is insufficient.
- The heightened standard extends beyond live play to warm-ups when they are integral to the sport and involve the same inherent risks.
- Willful and wanton conduct requires more than inadvertence or poor judgment; it requires conscious disregard or utter indifference to others’ safety.
- Conduct consistent with common, foreseeable warm-up practices, in the absence of a prohibiting rule and with shared awareness of inherent risks, does not meet the willful-and-wanton threshold as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court limited co-participant tort liability in hockey to willful and wanton misconduct and applied that limitation to injuries during pre-game warm-ups, concluding that a routine warm-up shot at an open net did not present a triable issue of reckless disregard.


Savino v. Robertson, 273 Ill. App. 3d 811 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)