Perez v. Chicago Park District
2016 IL App (1st) 153101
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On July 4, 2013, Kristina Perez was injured at West Lawn Park when two men illegally set off fireworks; an explosion caused severe, permanent injuries (amputation).
- Chicago Park District forbids fireworks on its property without a permit; the fireworks here were set off by third parties (Lagowski and Gros) without Park District authorization.
- Perez sued the Park District (and others) alleging negligence, willful and wanton conduct (including owner-occupier theory), and strict liability for hazardous activity; the Park District moved to dismiss under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Act).
- The trial court granted the Park District’s section 2-619 motion and dismissed Perez’s third amended complaint with prejudice; it also denied Perez’s oral request to file a fourth amended complaint.
- On appeal, Perez argued she could invoke willful-and-wanton exceptions in sections 3-106, 3-108, and 3-109 of the Act (conditions, supervision, and hazardous recreational activities).
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Perez’s allegations did not fall within those sections’ willful-and-wanton exceptions and that proposed amendments would not cure the defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3-106 (conditions of public property) permits willful-and-wanton claim | Perez: fireworks on park constituted a hazardous condition of Park property subject to §3-106 exception | Park Dist.: fireworks were an activity by third parties, not a property condition | Held: Injury caused by activity, not a property condition; §3-106 inapplicable |
| Whether §3-108(a)/(b) (undertaking/supervision) applies | Perez: Park District failed to supervise and therefore is liable under §3-108 | Park Dist.: it never "undertook to supervise" and had no common-law duty to supervise third-party tortfeasors | Held: No allegation Park District undertook supervision; no common-law duty to supervise; §3-108 inapplicable |
| Whether §3-109 (hazardous recreational activity) applies | Perez: fireworks are a hazardous recreational activity ("rocketeering") and Park District liable for willful-and-wanton conduct | Park Dist.: Park did not conduct, sanction, or license the fireworks; it forbade them | Held: §3-109 applies only when the public entity conducted the activity; Park did not conduct fireworks — claim fails |
| Whether trial court erred in denying leave to file a fourth amended complaint | Perez: denial prevented curing pleading defects | Park Dist.: plaintiff failed to present proposed amendment to the record; defects incurable | Held: Perez forfeited review by not including proposed complaint or transcript; proposed amendments wouldn’t cure defects; denial not erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374 (1994) (addressed scope of willful-and-wanton exception under the Act)
- Reis v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill. 2d 205 (2011) (rejected a universal implied willful-and-wanton exception to all Act immunities)
- Moore v. Chicago Park District, 2012 IL 112788 (2012) (distinguishes property "conditions" from activities for §3-106 analysis)
- McCuen v. Peoria Park District, 163 Ill. 2d 125 (1994) (refused to treat an activity on property as a property condition under §3-106)
- Kirk v. Michael Reese Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 117 Ill. 2d 507 (1987) (plaintiff must include proposed amended complaint in record to preserve appellate review of denial to amend)