Williams v. Miracle Center, Inc.
206 N.E.3d 1088
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- On Aug. 20, 2018, Vicky Williams (a caterer) slipped on a puddle created by a leaking water cooler during a school event at a commercial building owned by Miracle Center, Inc.; she sued Miracle Center (Count I), Frazier Preparatory Academy (Count II), and the Chicago Board of Education (Count III) for negligence.
- Plaintiff alleged Miracle Center owned and left a defective water cooler; she alleged Frazier and the Board controlled/maintained the premises during the event and negligently used/failed to ensure the water cooler was safe.
- Frazier and the Board filed combined 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 motions (raising 2-615 and 2-619 defenses), arguing plaintiff failed to plead a duty and, alternatively, that they were immune under section 2-105 of the Tort Immunity Act for failure to inspect third‑party property.
- The trial court denied the 2-615 challenges but granted the 2-619 dismissal based on section 2-105 immunity and entered a Rule 304(a) finding; plaintiff timely appealed after the court disposed of her postjudgment motion.
- The appellate court held section 2-105 ambiguous but, construing the Tort Immunity Act as a whole and strictly against the public entity, concluded the immunity targets public entities whose function is to perform formal health/safety inspections (e.g., building/elevator inspectors) and does not extend to a charter school or school board merely using third‑party property.
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Counts II and III and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's Rule 304(a) appeal | Williams: appeal timely because filed within 30 days after trial court disposed of her postjudgment motion | Frazier/Board: appeal untimely (filed 44 days after Rule 304(a) order) | Court: jurisdiction exists; time ran from disposition of postjudgment motion, appeal timely |
| Whether 745 ILCS 10/2-105 immunizes Frazier and the Board for failure to inspect third‑party property | Williams: 2-105 applies only to public entities whose official function is to perform health/safety inspections; not to schools that used the cooler | Frazier/Board: 2-105’s plain language contains no functional limitation and immunizes any local public entity for negligent inspections of third‑party property | Court: 2-105 ambiguous; construed in context of Act to immunize entities whose function is formal health/safety inspections; does not protect Frazier/Board here; dismissal reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist., 207 Ill.2d 359 (recognizing Tort Immunity Act limits governmental liability and burden of proving immunity)
- Barnett v. Zion Park Dist., 171 Ill.2d 378 (Tort Immunity Act codifies common‑law duties and lists function‑based immunities)
- Molitor v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11 (explaining historical sovereign immunity context)
- Ware v. City of Chicago, 375 Ill. App.3d 574 (applying section 2-105 to building‑inspection related claims)
- Hess v. Flores, 408 Ill. App.3d 631 (affirming immunity under section 2-105 for claims arising from building‑department inspections)
- In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill.2d 179 (discussing sovereign immunity history and legislative response)