delivered the opinion of the court:
This is аn appeal from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Bureau County directing a verdict for the defendant, School Directors of District No. 502, аnd against the plaintiff, Flora Tanari, at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant wherein shе alleged that as the result of the defendant’s negligent acts and omissions she was injured and was entitled to judgment for damages. During the presentation оf the plaintiff’s case it was disclosed that for many years the plaintiff and her husband were employed as bus drivers by one Michael Grivetti, who had a contract with the defendant school to transport students to and from school. Michael Grivetti received some complimentary footbаll tickets from the defendant school and he in turn gave one of these tickets to the plaintiff for the football game to be played on October 13, 1972, on the defendant’s playing field.
The plaintiff, her daughter and son-in-law on the evening of October 13, 1972, journeyed to the football field areа and after parking their automobile entered the playing field and seating area. While walking through an open area leading to the bleachers, a group of children who were running and playing in the area collided with the plaintiff with such force as to cause her to fall to the grоund. At that time a boy fell upon her, apologized, and in getting up stepped on her right leg, causing injury to her foot. The boy then disappeared and the plaintiff never ascertained his identity.
The record discloses that at football games and on the night of the incident which injured the plaintiff, the fоotball field and stadium area were policed by specially hired off-duty policemen. In addition numerous members of the faculty were assigned to various areas of the stadium for the purpose of crowd control and other policing purposes. The record further fails to reveal any instance of a like incident or injury occurring prior to the one complained of by the plaintiff.
At the close of the plaintiff’s сase the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff was a licensee on defendant’s premises and thаt being a licensee the defendant owed the plaintiff only the duty to refrain from wilful and wanton misconduct. The plaintiff pursuant to this ruling moved to amend her complaint to include a count for wilful and wanton misconduct. This motion was denied with the trial court’s observation that such an amendment would not сonform with the proof.
We agree with the trial court’s determination that a verdict should be directed in favor of the defendant; however, we prefer that such a ruling be based upon the law resulting from the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 85, par. 1 — 101 еt seq.) and the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 122, par. 24 — 24). That a reviewing court can affirm a judgment of the trial court for reasons other than those rеlied upon by the trial court is well established. See 2 Ill. L. & Pr. Appeal and Error §633, at 566 (1953); McDermott v. Burke,
At the time of plaintiff’s injury the Local Governmental and Gоvernmental Employees Tort Immunity Act provided as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided by Statute, a public employee serving in a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 85, par. 2 — 201.
The Act further provides that: •
“A local public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of its employee where the employee is not liable.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 85, par. 2 — 109. /
A school district is a public body and as such acts only thrоugh its officers and employees. Where the employee is not liable then the employer cannot be hable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. (See Fustin v. Board of Education,
When oral arguments were heard in this case by the reviewing court the defendant moved to cite additional authority and for leаve to file a written addendum to its brief. This motion was granted along with leave to the plaintiff to reply. The case cited by the defendant is Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education,
The Supreme Court further determined that this statute, to-wit, section 24 — 24 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 122, par. 24 — 24), conferred upon educators the status of рarent or guardian and consequently a parent is not liable to his child absent wilful and wanton misconduct. (See Kobylanski v. Chicago Board of Education,
In the instant case it is clear from the record that wilful and wanton misconduct was absent on the part of the defendant and its employees and hence under the pertinent provisions of the Locаl Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act or the School Code a directed verdict for the defendant was proper.
Wе further find that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to include a count of wilful and wanton misconduct. The facts of rеcord produced by the plaintiff could in no way be construed as constituting the existence of wilful or wanton misconduct and hence an amendment alleging such would be a nullity and an exercise in futility. In fact, after studying the record we can only conclude that irrespective of the standard of care which might have been required in this case, no verdict in favor of the plaintiff could stand as against the defendant school directоrs. The question of whether an amendment to a complaint should be allowed is addressed largely to the discretion of the trial court. (30 Ill. L. & Pr. Pleadings §104, аt 75 (1957).) We find no abuse of such discretion by the trial judge, for the record is devoid of any evidence that would support a count charging wilful and wanton misconduct.
From the foregoing we conclude that the trial court’s directed verdict for the defendant was proper. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Bureau County is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
ALLOY, P. J., and STOUDER, J., concur.