Tagliere v. Western Springs Park District
408 Ill. App. 3d 235
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Taiylor Tagliere, age seven, injured on a defective park seesaw owned by Western Springs Park District on February 9, 2006.
- Plaintiff alleges the defect was visible and arose from missing clamps/bolts at the seesaw’s fulcrum and that the District failed to discover and repair it despite routine inspections.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Park District under 745 ILCS 10/3-106 (Tort Immunity Act) based on no willful and wanton conduct.
- Evidence included the seesaw’s defect details (missing clamps/bolts, pinch point risk), inspection records and procedures, and testimony from District personnel and expert witnesses.
- Tagliere contends actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition; the District contends the statutory definition of willful and wanton requires actual intention or utter indifference, which was not shown here.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that under the 1998 amendment to 1-210, the willful and wanton standard is limited to the statutory definition and Burlingame balancing test is not applicable; the District’s conduct was not willful and wanton as defined, and there was no genuine fact issue to defeat summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated inspections show willful and wanton conduct | Tagliere: failure to discover constitutes willful and wanton | Park District: not willful/wanton under statute | No; not willful and wanton under 1-210 |
| Whether Burlingame balancing applies after 1998 amendment | Tagliere seeks Burlingame balancing to show recklessness | Park District: Burlingame eliminated for public entities | Not applicable; statutory definition governs |
| Whether actual notice/knowledge of dangerous condition was shown | Tagliere: missing clamps observed, knowledge inferred | District lacked actual knowledge prior to accident | No actual knowledge shown; no willful/wanton conduct established |
| Whether constructive notice or circumstantial evidence suffices | Tagliere: Muellman-type constructive notice | District had no such constructive knowledge | Insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove willful/wanton |
Key Cases Cited
- Winfrey v. Chicago Park District, 274 Ill.App.3d 939 (1995) (willful and wanton exists on a continuum; knowledge tolerance varies with danger)
- Burlingame v. Chicago Park District, 293 Ill.App.3d 931 (1997) (balancing test for willful and wanton conduct; severed post-amendment use)
- Muellman v. Chicago Park District, 233 Ill.App.3d 1066 (1992) (constructive knowledge possible where dangerous condition exists; intent to warn shown)
- Pfeifer v. Canyon Construction Co., 253 Ill.App.3d 1017 (1993) (circumstantial evidence can prove knowledge of dangerous condition)
- Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 161 Ill.2d 267 (1994) (definitional groundwork for willful and wanton conduct)
- Myers v. Krajefska, 8 Ill.2d 322 (1956) (core element: deliberate intention or conscious disregard for safety)