My other Oak Brook Golf case was indeed, I believe, frivolous, but with no benefit resulting to the taxpayers who were paying my bill. A young man was injured during the first session of a Junior Golf program being conducted by 3 of the OB professionals on the polo field next door (yes, this is Oak Brook). A practice driving range was set up with tennis balls so that the new golfers could get some confidence hitting the ball.
The plaintiff, ignoring instructions as 10 year olds are want to do
, bent over to pick up a ball which had come out behind one of the piles, and was struck with a backswing from young Nicholas Wakkim (cruel irony in the name?). Because this is a municipal golf course, the applicable tort immunity required the plaintiff to plead and prove willful and wanton conduct -- a higher form of misconduct than simple negligence.
When I moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff and his friend submitted affidavits (false ones!) that the pros had instructed the kids to swing at moving tennis balls which were being thrown/rolled to them -- I guess because it was a polo field they thought this would fly. The judge denied my motion.
Fortunately, the risk pool and the Village refused to settle. Eight years later (the case was non-suited and refiled when the plaintiff reached age 18), the case was tried. At trial, the plaintiff and his buddy's testimony of course changed -- no one would ever have believed the tossed ball story. But, at the close of the plaintiff's case the trial judge granted my directed verdict motion
based upon the changed testimony and the complete absence of willful and wanton conduct by my pros.
The judge refused, however, to award fees against the plaintiff and his lawyers
-- tho the pros take care of their lawyer whenever he shows up to play (so a good result for me!). The power to sanction for frivolity (frivolousness?) is rarely a deterrent in my experience.