Bielema v. River Bend Community School District No. 2
990 N.E.2d 1287
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Erica Bielema slipped in a puddle of Gatorade in the Fulton High School gym after a spill at a volleyball event on Aug 21, 2009.
- Kathleen Schipper, the principal, directed Lynn Schipper to stand guard over the spill while she retrieved cleanup supplies.
- Lynn was distracting himself in conversation as Erica approached and slipped; he could not prevent the fall.
- Plaintiffs allege defendant acted with willful and wanton conduct by failing to warn or remediate the danger.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the District, finding no willful and wanton conduct on undisputed facts.
- Appellate court affirmed, applying the statutory definition of willful and wanton under the Tort Immunity Act and favoring remedial action taken by district personnel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District acted with willful and wanton conduct | Erica arguesUtter indifference shown by failure to guard/remediate. | District contends it acted to remedy and warn after discovery. | No willful and wanton conduct |
| Whether the statutory definition governs, excluding common law | Schneiderman standard should apply to determine recklessness. | Statutory definition applies exclusively to Tort Immunity Act cases. | Statutory definition applies exclusively |
| Whether undisputed facts show utter indifference or conscious disregard | District failed to guard or warn adequately after discovery of spill. | District took action (guarding plus cleanup) indicating concern for safety. | Facts do not show utter indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Chicago Park District, 277 Ill. App. 3d 282 (1995) (known danger left unrepaired can support willful and wanton conduct)
- Lester v. Chicago Park District, 159 Ill. App. 3d 1054 (1987) (improvements after discovery do not prove utter indifference)
- Tagliere v. Western Springs Park District, 408 Ill. App. 3d 235 (2011) (statutory definition exclusive under 1-210 applies to Act cases)
- Thurman v. Champaign Park District, 2011 IL App (4th) 101024 (2011) (exclusive statutory definition governs willful and wanton in Act cases)
- Harris v. Thompson, 2012 IL 112525 (2012) (statutory definition consistent with case law)
- Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit Lines, Inc., 394 Ill. 569 (1946) (common-law recklessness definition cited by plaintiffs)
- Winfrey v. Chicago Park District, 274 Ill. App. 3d 939 (1995) (willful and wanton inquiry focuses on actions after discovery)