Michael Risty v. State of Illinois

OPINION

MITCHELL, J. In March of 1995, Michael Risty, the Claimant, was a student at the campus of the University of Illinois in Chicago. He lived in a dormitory on the east side of campus. On Saturday, March 25, 1995, he received a phone call from his academic advisor, Ms. Karen Quintana. She indicated that she was leaving the office shortly, but he should come over to pick up a letter of recommendation for a scholarship. That letter needed to be postmarked by the weekend of March 25th. The Claimant interrupted his lunch, put on his roller blades and roller bladed the few blocks from his dormitory to the Student Services Building and entered the building.

The incident, that led to this claim, occurred in that building. Mr. Risty s destination in the building was on the second floor on the northwest side of the building. Mr. Risty was not quite to Ms. Quintana s office when Mr.

Ahmed Goleh confronted him. Mr. Risty did not recognize Mr. Goleh, who was dressed in causal clothes without any formal identification readily apparent. Mr. Goleh was the building manager. At this point there is conflict in the testimony between Mr. Risty and Mr. Goleh regarding Mr. Goleh s actions and Mr. Risty s options. Mr. Risty wanted to continue on the roller [*366] 366 54 Ill. Ct. Cl. blades to his advisor s office. Mr. Goleh wanted Mr. Risty to leave the building, claiming that roller blading was not allowed in the building. Mr.

Risty, whose academic advisor was in hurry to leave, continued toward her office. Mr. Goleh suggested to him that he should leave because of the roller blades. At no time did Mr. Goleh feel it necessary to make contact with the UIC police; at no time did Mr. Risty threaten Mr. Goleh or in any way damage the property of the University.

Mr. Goleh did testify that a supervisor had explained to him that roller blading was not allowed in the Student Services Building. However, the record is devoid of any formal policy or evidence of warnings which would be provided to the students in that regard. Mr. Risty was not aware of it. The two continued to argue about Michael Risty s status as he moved towards the office of his advisor. Finally, Mr. Goleh tackled Mr. Risty, causing both to tumble to the ground. In doing so, Mr. Risty suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament, the symptoms of which appeared almost immediately.

Eventually, that injury would require surgical intervention by an orthopedic specialist. This claim is brought on behalf of Mr. Risty for the excess use of force by Mr. Goleh as agent of the university.

For the following reasons it is the Court s decision that an award be entered in the Claimant s favor.

The Claimant, now a graduate student in the School of Dentistry, was a pre-med student at the University at the time of this incident. He had the right to be in any of the university buildings and, more specifically, the Student Services Building, because that was the location of his academic advisor. Mr. Goleh, the building manager, had responsibilities to the University and the building. However, the ultimate question to be resolved is whether Mr. Goleh has the right to use physical force on a student for simply roller blading inside the building. Mr. Goleh had admitted that the Claimant did not constitute a threat to the State s property or to anyone else in the building. Ironically, with this occurring on a Saturday, the building was essentially empty. Further, there is evidence in the record, which establishes that the building managers were not authorized or directed to use physical force. The University employs a security force, which could be contacted in the event of a disturbance or a trespasser. The building managers were trained to notify the University police. Building managers were not trained in the use of force.

The State claims that the Claimant was a trespasser or an intruder on the premises. Further, the State claims that the reasonable use of force to repeal a trespasser affords a complete defense. Mr. Risty was not a trespasser.

He was a student at the University told to report to his academic advisor s office in order to pick up a document necessary for the furtherance of this education. Roller blades do not invalidate his status as a university student.

Given Mr. Goleh s lack of training in the area of physical confrontation, it is not surprising that Mr. Risty suffered an injury. It is not necessary to [*367] find that Mr. Goleh s acts were intentional. Mr. Goleh may only have been acting to restrain Mr. Risty in order to stop Mr. Risty from proceeding further into the building but his manner of doing so was excessive. The use of force is not to be taken lightly. If there were a legitimate University policy prohibiting roller blading in all buildings, a warning by Mr. Goleh for future actions would have been sufficient. If necessary, Mr. Goleh could have called the University police, people who are authorized and trained to use force. It is highly unlikely that the use of force would have been executed by trained officers for the offense of roller blading.

The Claimant produced medical evidence through the testimony of Dr.

Steven Levin. Dr. Levin saw the Claimant some six days after the incident where Mr. Risty initially injured his knee. At that time the clinical examination revealed to Dr. Levin that the Claimant had a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament. An MRI confirmed Dr. Levin s findings. Claimant was tried on conservative therapy, but eventually surgery was necessary. Dr.

Levin opined that the incident on the roller blades with Mr. Goleh was the proximate cause of the injury of the Claimant. The Claimant now has two screws in his knee and a graft on a tendon in the knee. This is a permanent injury. The Claimant and his doctor provided evidence that this condition will be the cause of future problems. Simply standing for extended periods of time, a requirement of dentistry, will cause the Claimant to have symptoms related to the injury.

For these reasons, it is the Court s decision that the Claimant be awarded and hereby is the amount of Sixty-Five Thousand ($65,000.00) Dollars.