Membership Renewal

As [plaintiff’s] counsel aptly stated before the circuit court, Fitness’s reading would allow covered facilities to be in full compliance with the statutes even if they used the AED only ‘as wall art.’ We must avoid construing a statute in a manner tha[t] would render it absurd, pointless, or ineffectual.”44

Returning to the procedural posture of the decision below, the Supreme Court reiterated the case came before it on a Section 2-619(a)(9) motion to dismiss, which asserts affirmative matter outside the pleadings defeats the claim.45 As the basis for its motion, LA Fitness relied upon the statutory language to argue it was immune from liability and had no duty.46 But, the Supreme Court held LA Fitness does have a statutory duty, as described above, based on the alleged willful and wanton misconduct in the non-use of an AED.47 As such, Plaintiff could conceivably introduce evidence establishing that LA Fitness’ failure to provide AED treatment to Dollett in a timely manner after she collapsed rose to the level of willful and wanton misconduct that breached LA Fitness’ duty owed to Dollett, thereby proximately causing her injuries.48

Because a private right of action exists,49 and the statutes do not immunize LA Fitness from liability for willful and wanton misconduct, the Supreme Court concluded “there is no real ‘affirmative matter’ that it can be relying upon that would support a motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9).”50 As such, the Supreme Court agreed with the assessment that “[a]t this early stage of the litigation, such a possibility cannot be ruled out as a matter of law. Taking the allegations in [plaintiff’s] complaint as true, the complaint may not be dismissed as a matter of law.”51

While LA Fitness sought to absolve itself of the consequences of its failure to respond to a patron’s emergency using the tools required to be at hand for just that purpose, the Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that such technical musings are not “reasonable.” The Court’s admonition gives full effect to the clear language of the two statutes at issue. Perhaps most importantly, it comports with what any person familiar with these circumstances reasonably would expect. Persons suffering a medical emergency cannot be ignored and available AEDs should be used in circumstances where a trained assessment concludes use of the AED is necessary and appropriate. Any covered business that fails to do so can face claims for civil liability under Illinois law.

44 Id. at ¶ 40, quoting 2020 IL App (3d) 170702-U, ¶ 32. 45 Id. at ¶ 41. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 Id. at ¶ 43 (expressly agreeing with the appellate court’s conclusion that private right of action exists under the Facility Preparedness

Act). 50 Id. at ¶ 33. 51 Id. at ¶ 41, quoting 2020 IL App (3d) 170702-U, ¶ 44.

There’s no place like LCBA/LCBF... and we wouldn’t be the same without you. Renew your membership today!

LCBA is the professional community for the Lake County legal community, offering connections, information and resources you can’t get anywhere else. We look forward to continuing to support you and celebrating your successes.