Lorenc v. Forest Preserve District
2016 IL App (3d) 150424
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 5, 2013 the Forest Preserve District of Will County ran a public bicycle event called "Cruise the Creek"; James F. Lorenc died after falling from his bicycle during the ride.
- Plaintiff Kathleen Lorenc sued as special administrator, alleging the District’s volunteer "trail sentinel" suddenly stepped into the trail and waved, causing riders to brake, swerve, and the decedent to fall and later die.
- Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pleaded wrongful death and survival claims alleging willful and wanton misconduct by the District (via its volunteer).
- Defendant moved to dismiss under section 2-619 (immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act) and later under section 2-615 (failure to plead willful and wanton conduct).
- Record included supervisor Gauchat’s deposition (sentinels were a "courtesy," told to stay off trail, but had discretion how to warn) and a participant affidavit describing a staff member stepping into the path and startling riders.
- Trial court granted dismissal on both grounds; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint sufficiently pled willful and wanton conduct | Alleged sentinel’s deliberate stepping into trail and Gauchat’s admission that standing in trail could cause crashes shows utter indifference or conscious disregard | Sentinel’s isolated act violated instructions but was not deliberate system-wide indifference; at most inadvertence/incompetence | Court: allegations do not rise to willful and wanton; 2-615 dismissal proper |
| Whether Act immunizes defendant (section 2-201 discretionary immunity and section 2-109 vicarious immunity) | Sentinel’s conduct was not discretionary or policy-making; immunity should not apply | Sentinels exercised discretion in how to warn riders; placement and use of sentinels involved discretionary policy decisions | Court: discretionary immunity applies; 2-619 dismissal proper |
| Whether defendant’s violation of internal rules proves willful and wanton conduct | Plaintiff relied on violation of instruction (stand off trail) as evidence of culpability | Defendant: violation of internal rules alone is insufficient to prove willful and wanton conduct | Court: agrees rules-violation alone insufficient; need greater showing of conscious disregard |
Key Cases Cited
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (2010) (willful and wanton is aggravated negligence; elements explained)
- Kirwan v. Lincolnshire-Riverwoods Fire Protection District, 349 Ill. App. 3d 150 (2004) (elements for willful and wanton conduct)
- Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76 (2004) (standard for ruling on a section 2-615 motion)
- Floyd v. Rockford Park District, 355 Ill. App. 3d 695 (2005) (violation of a public entity’s internal rules does not alone prove negligence or willful and wanton conduct)