Governmental Immunity and Sports Camps
The 5th District Illinois Appellate Court has reversed a ruling by Judge Brad Bleyer (William County.) Plaintiff, Gene Peters, was injured on July 25, 2006, while attending a summer football camp sponsored by the Herrin Community School District (www.herrinunit.org) at its football facility. Peters was injured when he was running from the locker room to the practice field. He tripped over a bumper used at the shot-put area where the coaches instructed the campers to run. The complaint alleges the bumper was covered in weeds.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging immunity under Section 3-106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. The trial court dismissed with prejudice the ordinary negligence claims and dismissed all the willful wanton claims without prejudice and allowed the plaintiff to replead the willful and wanton counts. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the football field where the plaintiff was injured was being used for educational purposes. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and it was granted based upon Section 3-106.
Section 3-106 provides that “Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury where the liability is based upon the existence of a condition of any public property intended or permitted to be used for recreational purposes . . . unless such local public entity or public employee is guilty of willful and wanton conduct proximately causing such injury.”
On appeal the plaintiff argued that Section did not apply because the immunity applies to public property that is used for recreational purposes and the complaint alleged that the football field was used for educational purposes.
The appeals court agreed: “We agree with plaintiff that because the property was located on school grounds and was being used by the school district for a summer camp, there is, at a minimum, an inference that the property in question was being used for educational purposes . . .” The court reversed the prior decision and remanded for further proceedings.
