Quadriplegia Trampoline Lawsuit Settles 18 Years After Tragic Accident

As one of the most experienced providers of lawsuit funding services in America, I often advocate that my company, Lawsuit Financial, provides a service that should be used as a financial bridge between the filing of a lawsuit and the resolution of a lawsuit. Lawsuit funding services are provided contingent upon the outcome of the funded litigation, so, until the case is settled, the lawsuit funding company must wait, patiently, for return of its principal and, hopefully, a profit. I have been engaged in this service for almost 12 years, and I have, on occasion, waited years for payment. The longest I have had to wait (still waiting) for a case to resolve is nine years; in that case, the insurance company, representing the defendant went bankrupt. As most attorneys reading this knows, that is one of the contingencies of litigation.

Today, as I was perusing the internet for article content, my eyes opened wide when I read about this case. Had I provided lawsuit funding when it was filed, I would have had to wait for an astonishing 18 years for repayment. Because that is exactly how long a 30 year old man has been waiting for resolution of his lawsuit against the Cihicago Board of Education, 18 years! The now 30 year old man was 13 years old when he was injured on a moni-trampoline as an eighth grade student at a Chicago elementary school. The parties have recently reached a multi-million dollar settlement.

The accident occured on December 14, 1992, in a tumbling class. The young man became a quadriplegic after he did a flip off the mini-trampoline onto a mat and landed on his head. While the class was an extracurricular activity, the trampoline belonged to the Chicago Public Schools, activities were supervised by an employee of the Chicago Youth Center, a private concern.

I am not clear on why this case has taken so long; it would seem that there have been multiple rulings and appeals. In July 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed the case on grounds of governmental immunity. For those non-lawyers reading this, this is a concept that prevents citizens from suing the government unless certain criteria are met. It is one of the first examples of restricting a person’s right to sue another. (Tort reform has made this a cottage industry) Here, the criteria required to sustain a lawsuit against the government was that the action that led to the young man’s severe injury had to be "intentional"; intent is an exception to the law that prohibits suit against the government.

A very patient and very persuasive hero, a lawyer by the name of Mike Reagan, asked for a rehearing. He argued that school officials were reckless, did not use proper equipment, and ignored common sense safety rules. In 2007 the Supreme Court reversed; in a 7-0 decision, it found that the school showed "an utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others". It permitted the suit to go forward and it ended with the recent settlement.

Unbelievable! Justice, after 18 long years! There are many who might say that "everyone knows that trampolines are dangerous". "This is just a case of a stupid kid doing a stupid thing". But that’s just it. We are dealing with an activity that is known to be dangerous, with a "kid" under adult supervision being allowed to perform a dangerous and life-altering stunt, with tragic results. Look at the standard that the Supreme Court required before it would permit the suit to continue. Agains, here it is, the school showed an "utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others". A rambunctious 13 year doesn’t know better; adult supervisor do, or should. And a 13 year old became a quadriplegic.

So, what if Lawsuit Financial had been in business 18 years ago? Would I have funded the case? Obviously, it had serious liability issues that ultimately resolved in the young man’s favor. I might have done it, and I would have waited, perhaps somewhat impatiently, for the outcome. I would have taken some heat from investors who would prefer simple, less controversial or complex cases. But my attitude is that if you are in this business of financing litigation for a penny, you are in for a pound. This isn’t an easy business; it can be very risky to those who invest. This is what I do for a living; if I had funded the case, I would have been providing valuable assistance to a seriously disabled person with a dire need for my help. I would have waited and I would have been glad to finally receive the return of funding proceeds along with a reasonable profit for the risk and the wait. But, most of all, there is one very important reason for the investment and the wait. The look on a 30 year old man’s face after finally receiving justice, so long delayed, would have been worth it.