Barr v. Cunningham, 89 N.E.3d 315

On June 3, 2010, 15-year-old Evan Barr was injured in gym class at Conant High School when a floor-hockey safety ball bounced off his stick and struck his eye, causing permanent pupil dilation.
Barr sued the school district and his PE teacher, Laurel Cunningham, alleging she was willful and wanton for not requiring available safety goggles.
Evidence showed PE used modified equipment (plastic sticks, squishy balls), repeated prior play without injury, rules enforced to reduce risk, and a box of goggles stored with equipment but not shown to be procured specifically for hockey.
Defendants asserted immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, primarily supervisory-immunity with a willful-and-wanton exception (745 ILCS 10/3-108).
The trial court granted a directed verdict for defendants, finding no willful and wanton conduct; the appellate court reversed and remanded; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cunningham's failure to require goggles constituted "willful and wanton" conduct under section 3-108	Cunningham knowingly disregarded student safety by not requiring available goggles	Cunningham reasonably relied on modified equipment and safety rules and lacked notice that serious eye injury was likely	No — directed verdict for defendants affirmed (no willful and wanton conduct shown)
Whether availability/storage of goggles raised a triable issue	Presence of goggles in equipment bucket shows conscious disregard	Mere availability, without evidence they were intended for hockey or that teacher knew a serious risk existed, is insufficient	No — availability alone does not establish willful and wanton conduct
Whether knowledge that ball could rise above waist created duty to require goggles	Foreseeable ball trajectory made eye injury a known risk	Prior safe use and lack of prior injuries meant no notice of serious danger	No — absence of evidence of prior incidents or inherent danger defeats willful-and-wanton claim
Whether case should proceed to jury or be decided as matter of law	Jury should decide credibility and inferences about negligence vs. willful/wanton	Evidence so favors defendants that no contrary verdict could stand; directed verdict appropriate	Court: Directed verdict proper; question need not go to jury

Lynch v. Board of Education of Collinsville Community Unit District No. 10, 82 Ill. 2d 415 (school employees taking some precautions not necessarily willful and wanton)
Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, 224 Ill. 2d 213 (inherent dangers of an activity can create triable willful-and-wanton issues when known risks and inadequate precautions exist)
Hadley v. Witt Unit School District 66, 123 Ill. App. 3d 19 (failure to stop observed dangerous activity may be willful and wanton)
Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (directed verdict inappropriate if evidence and reasonable inferences create substantial factual dispute)
Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (standard for directed verdict review)