Hascall v. Williams
2013 IL App (4th) 121131
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Hascall and her child C.H. sued the Urbana School District and administrators for alleged bullying incidents and inadequate responses at Thomas Paine Elementary.
- Plaintiffs asserted bullying by M.J., I.H., and A.M. from 2011, with repeated misconduct and alleged insufficient disciplinary action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing immunity under the Tort Immunity Act sections 2-201 and 2-109, and that the claims were not actionable.
- The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed, holding immunity applied.
- The court analyzed whether Board policy and discretionary actions were protected by immunity and whether any willful and wanton exception applied.
- The documents show the district policy required investigations and actions, but did not mandate a specific response to the particular circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are immune under 2-201/2-109 | Hascall argued immunity did not apply to willful misconduct. | Defendants contended discretionary/policy decisions immunized them. | Yes, immunity applied. |
| Whether 2-202 willful and wanton exception applies | Claims fall under willful and wanton conduct. | There is no execution/enforcement of law; no exception applies. | Willful/wanton exception does not apply. |
| Whether 24-24 School Code negates Tort Immunity Act | 24-24 governs immunity for school employees. | Tort Immunity Act provides immunity; Henrich controls. | Tort Immunity Act immunities apply; 24-24 does not override. |
| Whether the claims were ministerial vs discretionary | Actions were mandated by policy, thus ministerial. | Actions were discretionary policy determinations. | Acts were discretionary; immune under 2-201/2-109. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harinek v. 161 North Clark Street Ltd. Partnership, 181 Ill. 2d 335 (1998) (two-prong test for immunity from policy discretion)
- Henrich v. Libertyville High School, 186 Ill. 2d 381 (1999) (School Code vs. Tort Immunity Act interplay; public entity immunity)
- Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, 224 Ill. 2d 213 (2007) (special statutory immunity controls over general immunities)
- In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill. 2d 179 (1997) (illuminates willful/wanton interpretation under 2-201)
- Arteman v. Clinton Community Unit School District No. 15, 198 Ill. 2d 475 (2002) (statutory immunities vs. duties; care duties framed by Act)
- Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466 (1995) (distinction between ministerial and discretionary acts)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359 (2003) (strict construction of immunities; burden on entities to prove immunity)
- Aikens v. Morris, 145 Ill. 2d 273 (1991) (two-prong test for immunity—policy/discretion and execution)
- Village of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enterprises, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 484 (2001) (statutory immunities vs. duties; overarching immunity framework)