Grainger v. Harrah's Casino

18 N.E.3d 265

Don GRAINGER, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.HARRAH'S CASINO d/b/a/ Joliet Harrah's Casino, Jason Glickman, and William Lynch, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 3–13–0029.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Sept. 16, 2014.

Lonny Ben Ogus (argued), of Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro (argued), Solicitor General, of counsel), for appellee William Lynch.

Francis P. Kasbohm (argued), of Feiereisel & Kasbohm, of Chicago, for other appellees.

OPINION

Justice HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiff, Don Grainger, brought an action for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants William Lynch, an Illinois Gaming Board agent, Harrah's Casino, d/b/a/ Joliet Harrah's Casino (Harrah's), and Jason Glickman, the security supervisor at Harrah's. The action arose out of an incident in which Lynch briefly handcuffed and detained Grainger and turned him over to the Joliet police after Grainger presented what appeared to be an altered driver's license to Harrah's personnel when attempting to collect a jackpot he had won at a slot machine.

¶ 2 Lynch moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the action against him was barred by sovereign immunity; and (2) Grainger failed to present any evidence suggesting that Lynch acted without probable cause or caused Grainger severe emotional distress. Defendants Glickman and Harrah's also moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence that Glickman restrained or arrested Grainger or procured his arrest. Glickman and Harrah's maintained that Glickman had merely reported a suspicious looking driver's license to Lynch, who took control of the investigation and independently decided to restrain Grainger.

Glickman and Harrah's also argued that Grainger had failed to present any evidence suggesting that: (1) Glickman lacked probable cause to inquire into whether Grainger's license had been altered; (2) Glickman's behavior was “extreme and outrageous”; (3) Glickman knew or should have known that his actions would inflict severe emotional distress; or (4) Grainger suffered extreme emotional distress.

¶ 3 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lynch on sovereign immunity grounds and denied Glickman and Harrah's motion for summary judgment. The case was tried against defendants Glickman and Harrah's on Grainger's false imprisonment claim only. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.

¶ 4 Grainger appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lynch on sovereign immunity grounds. He also appeals the trial court's orders entering judgment in favor of Glickman and Harrah's and denying his motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court caused severe prejudice to Grainger by erroneously refusing a jury instruction that Grainger had tendered on probable cause. Specifically, Grainger argues that the jury should have been instructed that, in order to have probable cause to restrain someone, security personnel must pursue “reasonable avenues of investigation.”

¶ 5 FACTS

¶ 6 The following facts are drawn from the trial testimony and other evidence submitted by the parties. Grainger is a corrections officer specialist who has worked for the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 16 years. He lives in Georgia. In April of 2009, Grainger was booked for a three-night stay at Harrah's Casino Hotel in Joliet. The hotel stay was complimentary because Grainger had accumulated points on his Harrah's “Player's card” by playing slot machines at several Harrah's casinos in various states. On April 19, 2009, after checking into the Harrah's Joliet hotel, Grainger played the dollar slots in the casino for approximately 15 minutes. While playing, Grainger used his Harrah's Player's card, which had his name and picture on it.

¶ 7 While his Harrah's Player's card was in a slot machine, Grainger won a $1,400 jackpot. For tax-reporting purposes, Illinois Gaming Board policy requires a person who wins a jackpot of more than $1,200 to present state or federal identification in order to collect his or her winnings. When the slot host approached Grainger and asked him to provide identification, Grainger produced his valid Georgia driver's license, which had his picture on it. The slot host told the casino operations manager that she thought that Grainger's driver's license looked altered. The casino operations manager agreed and alerted Glickman, who was the security supervisor at Harrah's.

¶ 8 Glickman approached Grainger and asked to see a valid identification. Grainger again produced his Georgia driver's license. After viewing the license, Glickman thought it looked “suspicious” because it appeared to be altered. Glickman did not run Grainger's Player's card (which had Grainger's picture in the system) or check Grainger's “points” on the card. Nor did he use any other database to investigate Grainger's identity. Glickman did not investigate where Grainger was staying overnight or order the slot host or the casino operations manager to investigate anything.

¶ 9 Pursuant to Harrah's procedure, Glickman reported the matter to Illinois Gaming Board Special Agent Lynch, who is a licensed Illinois police officer. The State of Illinois regulates casinos and mandates that the Illinois Gaming Board respond to criminal or suspected criminal activity occurring at a casino. As an Illinois Gaming Board agent, Lynch's duties included monitoring and regulating Harrah's in accordance with the Riverboat Gambling Act (230 ILCS 10/1 et seq. (West 2008)). Lynch testified that: (1) he was also responsible for deterring crime and cheating in the casino; (2) he reported any violation of law to the Illinois Gaming Board; and (3) he was authorized to make arrests at the casino under the Riverboat Gambling Act and under Illinois Gaming Board protocols.

¶ 10 Lynch told Glickman to bring him Grainger's driver's license, and Glickman did so. When he examined the photograph on the license, Lynch thought that it looked altered because the neck did not match the head. Specifically, the neck appeared to be very thick and protruded past the head. Lynch thought that one picture had been superimposed over another. In his nine years of experience, Lynch had never seen another picture like it. Lynch checked the license through the Law Enforcement Agency Data System, a law enforcement database. The personal information on Grainger's license “checked out,” but there was no photograph in the database to compare with the photograph on the license. Lynch admitted that, for the license to be fraudulent, Grainger would have had to have used the license of a different person that matched his height, weight, and race, since Grainger matched all of the identifying information on the license.

¶ 11 Lynch and Glickman then approached Grainger, who had been waiting by the slot machines on the casino floor. Lynch took out his badge and identified himself to Grainger. After looking at Grainger, Lynch thought that Grainger's appearance did not match the picture on the license because Grainger's “neck wasn't protruding like the one on the license.” To Lynch, “[t]he face looked the same but the neck was totally different.” Grainger produced another piece of identification. Grainger later testified that he produced his work identification as a federal corrections officer, which had his picture on it. Lynch did not look at this identification. Neither Lynch nor any Harrah's employee asked Grainger for any other identification, and Lynch did not ask Grainger where he was staying or whether he was a special Harrah's player. Lynch decided to detain Grainger and turn him over to the Joliet police department.

¶ 12 Because Grainger was “very big and strong,” and because, in Lynch's experience, individuals become hostile if they think they are not going to be paid their jackpot, Lynch decided to secure Grainger by handcuffing him and escorting him to a detention room, where Grainger was handcuffed to a bench. Grainger was cooperative at all times.

¶ 13 At Lynch's direction, Harrah's called the Joliet police. Joliet police officer Haiduke arrived at Harrah's approximately nine minutes after Grainger was first handcuffed. Lynch informed Haiduke of a possible fake or altered license. Haiduke agreed that the license appeared altered and decided to transport Grainger to the Joliet police department for further inquiry. Haiduke recuffed Grainger with his own handcuffs, put Grainger in his squad car, and took him to the police station.

¶ 14 At the police station, Haiduke ran Grainger's identification and “everything came back valid.” Haiduke then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Sergeant Nicodemos. Like Haiduke, Nicodemos initially thought that the picture on the driver's license looked “peculiar,” but, after examining Grainger, he concluded that Grainger's neck resembled the license picture. Nicodemos and Haiduke returned Grainger to Harrah's, uncuffed, at 1:06 a.m., approximately 42 minutes after Grainger was handcuffed by Lynch and less than an hour from the time Grainger was first approached by Glickman.

¶ 15 Grainger collected his jackpot, left Harrah's, and went to his brother's house, which was about a mile from the casino. Later that night, Grainger returned to Harrah's and spent the rest of the night in his Harrah's hotel room. He checked out later that day, traveled to Hammond, Indiana, checked into a Harrah's-affiliated hotel for the night, and gambled at the nearby Harrah's casino.

¶ 16 Grainger sued Lynch, Glickman, and Harrah's in the circuit court of Will County alleging false imprisonment (count I) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (count II). In each count, Grainger sought compensatory damages in excess of $50,000 against all of the defendants (jointly and severally), punitive damages in excess of $50,000 against each defendant, costs, attorneys fees, and “whatever...