Laura M. Julien, Mickey, Wilson, Weiler, Renzi, Lenert & Julien, P.C.
630-801-9699 Ext. 102 | Email Laura M. Julien
School District and Teacher Shielded from Liability for Student’s Gym Class Injury
In Haase vs. Kankakee School District 111, 2025 IL 131420, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the qualified immunity provisions of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101, et. seq., applied to a school district and its employee in an action filed by a student who was injured during gym class, reversing the decision of the appellate court and affirming the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶1.
Facts
On March 13, 2017, Darren Wilbur Dayhoff, an employee of Kankakee School District 111, was the supervising physical education teacher during a morning gym class. It was alleged that Dayhoff “provided soccer balls to the students, went to a seat in the corner of the gym, put his feet up, and began using his cellphone and/or a computer.” 2025 IL 131420 at ¶4. Sometime during class, “Student A,” who was alleged to have known behavioral issues, became overly aggressive and began initiating unwanted physical contact with other students, eventually tackling student Riley Haase, causing Riley to fall and severely and permanently injure his arm. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶5.
Riley’s father, as next friend of Riley (and later Riley, when he reached the age of majority), filed suit against the District and Dayhoff, alleging that Dayhoff breached his duty of reasonable care, was utterly indifferent, and consciously disregarded the safety of the students in his care by failing to adequately supervise the class and intervene when he knew or should have known that Student A’s conduct posed a risk. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶¶6 – 7.
Circuit Court
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for both negligent and willful and wonton conduct under §§2-109 and 2-201 of the Act. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶9. The defendants alternatively asserted qualified immunity for negligent conduct only under §3-108 of the Act on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to allege willful and wonton conduct. Id.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that both the District and Dayhoff were immune from liability under §§2-109 and 2-201 of the Act. Specifically, the court noted that Dayhoff exercised his discretionary and policymaking judgment within the meaning of §2-201 of the Act through his determination of the activities to be performed during the class period as well as identifying the students who were allowed to participate. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶22.
The circuit court also determined that the plaintiffs did not assert sufficient facts to support an allegation of willful and wonton conduct, and that “inadvertence” and “inattentiveness” by a District employee was not alone sufficient to make this showing. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶23. The circuit court further opined that even if §2-201 immunity didn’t apply, the defendants were immune from liability under §3-108 of the Act. Id. The plaintiffs filed an appeal.
Appellate Court
The appellate court identified matters that it believed were disputed issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶24. First, the appellate court determined that there was a disputed issue of material fact on the matter of whether Dayhoff made a conscious discretionary decision or policy determination within the meaning of §2-201. Id. Likewise, the court found that the District’s knowledge of Student A’s disciplinary history and obligation to warn its teachers also constituted an issue of material fact as to whether the conduct was willful and wonton. Id. Because the appellate court believed there were disputed issues of material fact, it held that summary judgment was improper and reversed the circuit court’s judgment. Id.
Illinois Supreme Court
The Illinois Supreme Court examined whether the circuit court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on §§3-108, 2-109, and 2-201 of the Act. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶29. Section 3-108 provides that public employees are immune from liability for negligent supervision of activities on public property unless the public employee or entity is guilty of willful and wonton conduct. “Willful and wonton conduct” is defined in §3-108 as “a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others or their property.” 2025 IL 131420 at ¶33. While generally a question of fact, the court may decide the issue on summary judgment if the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, are insufficient to sustain such an allegation. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶34.
The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s assessment of the District’s willful and wonton conduct, noting that (a) the plaintiffs’ pleadings never alleged that the District independently had a duty to warn its teachers about Student A’s history and (b) the plaintiffs’ entire argument against the District was based solely on Dayhoff’s actions and the District’s vicarious liability as employer. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶35. Accordingly, the court determined that because this cause of action was not included in the pleadings, it was not an issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶36. With regard to whether Dayhoff knew or should have known about Student A’s history, the court determined that Dayhoff’s and the District administrator’s sworn deposition denied this knowledge and the plaintiffs provided no evidence to refute. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶¶37 – 38. Because the plaintiffs could not rely on the pleadings alone and did not provide any evidence in support of their claims, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that no issues of genuine material fact existed. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶40.
Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court examined whether summary judgment was appropriate. The court noted that indoor soccer, the activity played in class, was not an inherently dangerous activity that would constitute willful and wonton conduct. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶42. Regarding the plaintiffs’ negligence claims alleging that, had Dayhoff been paying attention to the class, he would have observed Student A’s behavior and intervened, the court found that although the facts supported a claim of negligent failure to supervise, Dayhoff’s actions did not rise to the level of willful and wonton conduct. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶44. Accordingly, the court found that the defendants established immunity under §3-108 of the Act. 2025 IL 131420 at ¶46. Because §3-108 applied, the court did not address the applicability of §§2-109 and 2-201. Id.
For more information about governmental tort immunity, see MUNICIPAL LAW: CONTRACTS, LITIGATION, AND HOME RULE (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.