In Haase v. Kankakee School District, the Illinois Supreme
Court considered whether a school district and its employees were
entitled to immunity for a student injury under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees
Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity Act”).
A parent sued a school district on behalf of his son who was
injured during gym class. According to the complaint, the gym teacher walked
the students through warmup activities and provided basketball and soccer balls
to the students. The gym teacher then went to sit in the corner of the gym and
began using his laptop. The complaint alleges that the gym teacher was aware of
a child in the class who had been disciplined in the past for fighting and
getting aggressive with other students. The gym teacher, principal, and student
counselor, however, did not have any recollection or records of this child being
aggressive with other students.
The students began playing a soccer game, and the injured student testified that the other child was not playing for either team but was attempting
to grab the ball from the students who were playing soccer. The situation
escalated, and the injured student claims the child tackled him resulting in injury. Other
students from the class testified they thought the game had turned
unnecessarily rough. The gym teacher testified he had seen the incident
but thought it was a normal scrum for a soccer ball.
The Tort Immunity Act provides immunity for public bodies
and public employees in limited circumstances. Section 3-108 of
the Act immunizes a local public entity for negligent supervision of, or
negligent failure to supervise, an activity on public property. However, there
is an exception to this immunity where an employee of the public body acts with
utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others.
The trial court held that the claims in the lawsuit were not
sufficient to state a cause of action because the gym teacher’s conduct did not
rise to the level of utter indifference or conscious disregard to defeat tort immunity. On appeal, a
divided appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and found that
there was a dispute of fact regarding whether the child was known to be
aggressive and whether the gym teacher acted with conscious disregard for the
student’s safety based on this knowledge.
On appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Court
held that because the complaint had not alleged conduct amounting to utter
indifference or a conscious disregard for safety, the school district was
immune from liability under Section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act. The Court
concluded that the actions of the teacher did not rise to the level of willful
and wanton conduct.
Post Authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink