Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Definition of "Willful and Wanton" Conduct under the Tort Immunity Act

In Thurman v. Champaign Park District, an opinion filed on August 10, 2011, an Illinois appellate court held that the statutory definition of "willful and wanton" conduct in the Tort Immunity Act does not include inconsistent definitions found in Illinois case law.  Section 3-106 of the Tort Immunity Act shields local public entities from liability for injuries that occur on grounds used for recreational purposes unless the injury resulted from the entity's willful and wanton conduct. The Tort Immunity Act defines willful and wanton conduct 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."   745 ILCS 10/1-210.

In Thurman, a mother brought a negligence claim against the Champaign Park District on behalf of her son who injured himself when he ran into a structural steel beam that was hidden behind a tarp at the park district's indoor tennis facility.  The park district argued that it could not be held liable for the child's injuries because the Tort Immunity Act made it immune from liability for mere negligence claims and its actions did not amount to willful and wanton conduct.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Tort Immunity Act's definition of willful and wanton conduct included inconsistent case law definitions of the term.  This interpretation of the Tort Immunity Act would include a broader range of conduct than the strict statutory definition.  The appellate court, however, rejected the plaintiff's argument and held that the statutory definition of willful and wanton conduct does not include inconsistent definitions found in Illinois cases.

Notably, the appellate court also provided examples of conduct that does amount to willful and wanton conduct under the Tort Immunity Act.  A public entity may be found to have engaged in willful and wanton conduct where it (1) has been informed of a dangerous condition, (2) knows that others have been injured because of that condition, or (3) intentionally removes a safety feature or device from its recreational property.  To avoid allegations of willful and wanton conduct, public entities in Illinois should immediately correct any known dangerous conditions on their premises.