2011 IL App (2d) 101053
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Darius Smith, age 17, drowned in the outdoor pool at Cinnamon Lake Towers (CLT) on July 30, 2008, where no lifeguard was on duty.
- A CLT pool attendant was on duty that day; attendants were not lifeguards and were not tasked to rescue swimmers, only to enforce CLT regulations.
- CLT regulations and posted notices stated no lifeguards on duty and required parental/guardian supervision for minors; juveniles under 16 generally needed an adult supervisor.
- Plaintiff Barnett, as special administrator, alleged several grounds of negligence, including failure to provide a lifeguard and violations of the Swimming Facility Act and Code rules.
- Disputed facts included whether CLT allowed unsupervised minors, whether attendants could or would perform rescues, and whether posting notices satisfied statutory duties.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the duty question; plaintiff and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, which Appellate Court reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CLT owe a duty to Darius to provide a lifeguard? | Barnett asserts 820.300(b) and common law imposed a lifeguard duty for minors; Darius was drowned while near or in the pool. | Lifeguard duty not required for this pool; Darius did not belong to the protected class under 820.300(b); signs sufficed if lifeguard not provided. | No duty to provide a lifeguard owed to Darius. |
| If a duty existed, did posting notice satisfy that duty instead of a lifeguard? | Posting a notice is insufficient; a lifeguard is required to protect patrons, including minors. | Posting the required notice under 820.300(b) discharges the duty for non-wave pools when no lifeguard is provided. | Posting the statutory notice sufficed; no breach by CLT. |
| Does Section 2 of the Act create an affirmative duty to provide lifeguards for all patrons? | Act’s purpose to protect public health implies broader duty to ensure safety. | The provision is too broad and does not create a specific duty to Darius or a private party’s liability. | No specific duty arising from Section 2 of the Act toward Darius. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalata v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 144 Ill.2d 425 (1991) (statutory violations raise prima facie negligence if class protected is affected)
- Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill.2d 278 (1984) (public swimming pools treated differently; traditional duty to patrons)
- Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill.App.3d 416 (1995) (administrative regs define scope of duty to supervise; adults vs. minors)
- Brumm v. Goodall, 16 Ill.App.2d 212 (1958) (duty surrounding lifeguards; pre-Act context)
- Jackson v. TLC Associates, Inc., 185 Ill.2d 418 (1998) (open-and-obvious dangers and implied duties to patrons)
- Decatur Amusement Park Co. v. Porter, 137 Ill.App.3d 448 (1907) (duty to provide reasonable precautions to patrons; authority cited by courts)
- Lawson v. Schmitt Boulder Hill, Inc., 398 Ill.App.3d 127 (2010) (voluntary-undertaking doctrine considerations; duty not expanded by regulation alone)