Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors
2012 IL 112479
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Jane Doe-3 and Jane Doe-7 were sexually abused by teacher Jon White at Thomas Paine Elementary (Urbana) after he had prior service in McLean County schools.
- Defendants McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors and five McLean administrators allegedly knew of White’s abuse but did not record it or timely report it.
- During 2004–05 White was disciplined and eventually severed; McLean later provided a false employment verification to Urbana stating White worked the entire year.
- In 2005 Urbana hired White based on that false verification, enabling continued abuse of plaintiffs.
- Appellate court reversed trial court, holding defendants owed a duty based on misrepresentation; Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty of care exists for willful and wanton conduct claim | Doe-3 and Doe-7 plead duty from misstatement on verification form | McLean contends no duty; public duty rule and immunity apply | Duty exists; reversed 2-615 dismissal on ground of duty |
| Whether any duty arises from warning Urbana or reporting to authorities | Duty to warn or report based on violations of Act and foreseeability | No common-law duty absent special relationship; no affirmative duty | Not relied on by majority as sole duty basis; analysis focused on misrepresentation duty |
| Whether public duty rule bars recovery | Public policy favors protection of children; duty to prevent harm | Public duty rule precludes individual duties to citizens | Public duty rule not controlling; remand for duty analysis under common law |
| Whether Tort Immunity Act immunities bar claims | Act does not immunize willful and wanton misrepresentation | Act immunities may apply to provision of information | Immunity addressed, but majority treats issue as potentially applicable on remand |
| Whether 2-210 and related immunities foreclose willful and wanton misrepresentation claim | 2-210 may not immunize willful conduct; need resolution | 2-210 may immunize negligent misrepresentation; issue not fully briefed | Issue not finally resolved; remand to address applicability of 2-210 on pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662 (Ill. 2012) (duty analysis framework with four factors; special relationships)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (Ill. 2010) (willful and wanton conduct as aggravated negligence; duty required)
- Doe v. Chicago Board of Education, 213 Ill. 2d 19 (Ill. 2004) (elements of willful and wanton conduct; foreseeability standard)
- Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill. 2d 205 (Ill. 2011) (limits on willful and wanton exceptions to immunity; Ries analysis)
- Barnett v. Zion Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 378 (Ill. 1996) (discussion of willful and wanton exceptions to immunity; reading of statute)