Bowman v. Chicago Park District
19 N.E.3d 75
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On April 21, 2011, 13-year-old Cheneka Ross used a curved playground slide at Park 399; her foot caught in a hole at the slide’s bottom, fracturing her ankle and requiring surgery.
- The Chicago Park District (CPD) owned and maintained the playground; community members had reported the slide’s damage to CPD (and to an alderman’s office) beginning in mid-2010, and CPD made a work order but did not complete timely repairs.
- Witnesses (including a neighbor who called 311 and CPD staff) testified the slide remained broken for months, that caution tape/boarding had been intermittently used, and that children (including older children) continued to play there.
- CPD moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no duty because Ross was not an intended user (CPD Code bars use of equipment designed for under-12s by persons 12 and older) and (2) the hazard was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the ground that Ross (age 13) was not an intended user under the CPD ordinance; the court did not address whether the defect was open and obvious or whether CPD’s failure to repair was willful and wanton.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding CPD failed as a matter of law to show Ross was not an intended user because CPD did not provide signs, public notice, or evidence that this particular park/slide had been designated or published as limited to children under 12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPD owed a duty to 13‑year‑old Ross (i.e., was she an intended user)? | Ross: No evidence park/slide was designated for under‑12s; no signage or notice, so she was an intended/permitted user. | CPD: Ordinance bars persons 12+ from using equipment designed for under‑12s; Ross violated ordinance, so CPD owes no duty. | Reversed — CPD failed to show as a matter of law Ross was not an intended user; no sign/publication informed park users of an age restriction. |
| Whether the slide’s defect was an open and obvious condition that precludes liability | Ross: Hole was not visible from top because slide is curved; factual question remains. | CPD: Hazard was open and obvious; a reasonable (older) child should have avoided it. | Not decided — remanded for trial court to resolve in light of remaining issues. |
| Whether CPD’s failure to repair after notice rose to willful and wanton conduct | Ross: CPD had actual/constructive notice from complaints and work orders; alleged prolonged nonrepair could be willful/wanton. | CPD: (Implicit) ordinary care/maintenance defenses; argued immunity via lack of duty. | Not decided — remanded for trial court to consider willful/wanton claim given factual record of notice and nonrepair. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment standard applied by trial court | Ross: Summary judgment inappropriate where factual disputes exist about notice, signage, and obviousness. | CPD: Entitled to judgment as a matter of law by showing absence of duty. | Reversed — summary judgment improper on intended‑user ground; factual disputes remain requiring further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (1992) (summary judgment is a drastic measure; appellate court reviews de novo)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (a movant can meet its burden by showing absence of evidence for the nonmoving party)
- Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort, 166 Ill. 2d 155 (1995) (tort‑immunity statutes should be strictly construed against municipal defendants)
- Montano v. City of Chicago, 308 Ill. App. 3d 618 (1999) (no duty owed where plaintiff used a thoroughfare in violation of an ordinance)
- Prokes v. City of Chicago, 208 Ill. App. 3d 748 (1991) (ordinance violation can bear on intended‑user analysis)