St. East High School - District says mold suit is groundless

[Guest guest]

http://dailynews./h/cdh/20010817/lo/district_says_mold_suit_is_grou

ndless_1.html

Friday August 17 07:40 AM EDT

District says mold suit is groundless

By a Meltzer Daily Herald Staff Writer

When local governmental bodies make decisions, they make judgment calls

about which competing interest gets priority. People on the losing side

can't sue the governmental body just because their interests didn't win out.

That was the argument presented by an attorney for the St. school

district in a response filed this week to a lawsuit by several former and

current students and employees at St. East High School. All the

plaintiffs say they have had health problems because of conditions at East.

The lawsuit alleges that district leaders were negligent because they knew

about the health complaints, architectural problems with the building and

environmental concerns raised by previous studies. It also alleges that the

district tried to conceal the conditions at the building and forced

employees to work in an unsafe environment.

In the response, the district denies all wrongdoing. Rather than address

each allegation, attorney Smyth argues that the lawsuit is

inappropriate.

" Regardless of what is stated in the complaint, you don't have the right to

pursue the case, " Smyth said.

The Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act protects

the school district, he said. According to the response, the act " immunizes

public entities and public officials from liability for injuries caused by

any acts that fall within their official discretion, even when the

discretion is abused. "

Smyth cites the litigation surrounding the Chicago flood of April 1992.

Construction workers reinforcing bridges over the Chicago River penetrated

the underground tunnel system and flooded buildings throughout the business

district.

The city was found to be immune from liability because its supervision of

the project was discretionary.

The school district has asked Judge Colwell to dismiss the case. A

schedule for hearing arguments and making a decision likely will be set next

month.

Though attorneys for the plaintiffs didn't want to argue legal points

through the newspaper, they expressed shock at the district's approach.

Attorneys Childress and , who filed the original

complaint by former student Steinberg, said the conditions of the

school are so bad that they fall outside the bounds of acceptable policy

decisions.

" They just can't put their heads in the ground and act like an ostrich,

especially considering the conditions of the school, " said.

Smyth also argues that employees should not be seeking damages through a

lawsuit because they can seek redress through workman's compensation. And he

challenges the plaintiffs' description of the school as a " ultrahazardous, "

writing that ultrahazardous or " abnormally dangerous " work is work that is

dangerous under any circumstances, such as dealing with explosives.

Negligence, if it existed, is not enough to turn a school into an

ultrahazardous environment.

Childress disagreed.

" A normal school is not hazardous, " he said. " This one is. "

Mold: Attorney challenges 'ultrahazardous' description