2015 IL App (5th) 130465
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In July 2006 Gene Peters, a high‑school student, ran from locker room to a summer football camp field and struck a hidden bumper in a discus/shot‑put area, suffering serious injuries.
- Peters sued Herrin Community Unit School District No. 4 alleging negligent maintenance (overgrown grass hiding the bumper) and a willful-and-wanton count alleging coaches directed players along the route that led to the hazard.
- The trial court previously granted summary judgment for defendants on an earlier negligence complaint under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act §3‑106 (recreational immunity).
- After leave to file a third amended complaint (adding willful-and-wanton), the trial court dismissed the negligence count as duplicative and granted summary judgment for defendants on willful-and-wanton grounds, finding no evidence coaches instructed a particular route and no willful/wanton conduct.
- Peters appealed; this court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the negligence claim because Peters filed his notice of appeal outside Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 time limits, but reversed the summary judgment on the willful-and-wanton claim and remanded for further factual inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over negligence count | Peters argues the negligence claim should be reviewable on appeal (tried to amend notice). | Defendants say notice of appeal was untimely under Ill. S. Ct. R. 303, so no jurisdiction. | Court: No jurisdiction — notice untimely; negligence count not reviewable. |
| Applicability of §3‑106 immunity to negligence claim | Camp was educational (extracurricular) so immunity should not apply. | Field was used for recreational purposes; §3‑106 immunity applies. | Not decided (jurisdictional bar); trial court previously found immunity as to earlier complaint. |
| Summary judgment on willful-and-wanton claim | Peters: factual disputes exist (coaches instructed route through hazardous area) making summary judgment improper; willful/wanton exception applies if coaches knew of hazard. | Defendants: no evidence coaches directed route; conduct not willful/wanton; summary judgment proper. | Reversed: genuine factual disputes exist about route/coach instructions; remand for trial court to examine whether coaches knew of hazard and conduct was willful/wanton. |
| Whether the camp/use is recreational or educational for immunity | Peters: camp was extracurricular but educational in nature; property not per se recreational. | Defendants: factors (fee, summer use notwithstanding) support recreational use and immunity. | Left for trial court on remand to decide after resolving factual issues about route and coach conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebert v. Dr. Scholl's Foot Comfort Shops, Inc., 137 Ill. App. 3d 550 (notice of appeal deadline under Rule 303 governs appellate jurisdiction)
- Williams v. Nagel, 162 Ill. 2d 542 (summary judgment standard)
- Chatham Foot Specialists, P.C. v. Health Care Service Corp., 216 Ill. 2d 366 (summary judgment is drastic and granted only when right is clear)
- Chelkova v. Southland Corp., 331 Ill. App. 3d 716 (causation standard on summary judgment)
- Ozuk v. River Grove Bd. of Educ., 281 Ill. App. 3d 239 (distinguishing recreation from physical education; intended use inquiry)
- Bubb v. Springfield Sch. Dist. 186, 167 Ill. 2d 372 (recreational immunity applies to property intended or permitted for recreation; case‑by‑case analysis)
- Adamczyk v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, 324 Ill. App. 3d 920 (scope-of-property analysis under §3‑106)
- Majewski v. Chicago Park Dist., 177 Ill. App. 3d 337 (definition and standards for willful and wanton conduct)
- Jarvis v. Herrin City Park Dist., 6 Ill. App. 3d 516 (willful and wanton vs. mere negligence)
- Winfrey v. Chicago Park Dist., 274 Ill. App. 3d 939 (awareness of hazardous condition and prior injuries relevant to willful and wanton)