Maloney v. Elmhurst Park Dist.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CULBERTSON
• Citation: Maloney v. Elmhurst Park Dist., 265 N.E.2d 654, 47 Ill.2d 367 (Ill. 1970)
• Decision Date: 18 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 42816,42816
• Parties: Daniel MALONEY, Appellant, v. ELMHURST PARK DISTRICT, Appellee.

Page 654

265 N.E.2d 654

47 Ill.2d 367

Daniel MALONEY, Appellant, v. ELMHURST PARK DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 42816.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1971.

Fred Lambruschi, Chicago (Herbert P. Veldenz, Chicago, of counsel) for appellant.

Peregrine, Stime & Henninger, Wheaton (Roy I. Peregrine, Wheaton, of counsel), for appellee.

CULBERTSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Du Page County granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant park district in an action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, a minor, while he was playing in defendant's park facility. The constitutionality of a statute being involved, plaintiff's appeal from the trial court's judgment comes directly to this court. See our Rule 302, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 110A, § 302, 43 Ill.2d R. 302.

The complaint alleges in substance that while plaintiff was playing on an 'artificial hill' in Elmhurst Park, he fell and was severely injured. It is claimed that the defendant negligently allowed the hill to be and remain in a dangerous condition in that no fencing was provided around the hill, it was ungraded, and that rocks and other debris were allowed to remain thereon. As a proximate result of the defendant's negligence as thus averred, plaintiff fell and sustained injury. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint denying its substantive allegations, and subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that under a provision of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 85, par. 3--106), local governmental entities could not be held liable for personal injury resulting from conditions existing in parks, playgrounds or open areas employed for recreational purposes in the absence of their willful and wanton negligence in causing the injury. Plaintiff thereupon filed a motion to amend his complaint to allege willful and wanton negligence, which motion was allowed. However, plaintiff subsequently filed a motion contesting the constitutionality of the provision of the Immunity Act in question, and asked that the order allowing the amendment of his complaint be vacated. The trial court vacated such order, and, after noting plaintiff's election to stand upon the allegations of the original complaint, entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant and against plaintiff. This appeal ensues.

Section 3--106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act here in question provides as follows: 'Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury where the liability is based on the existence of a condition of any public property intended or permitted to be used as a park, playground or open area for recreational purposes unless such local entity or public employee is guilty of willful and wanton negligence proximately causing such injury.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 85, par. 3--106.

Plaintiff, relying principally upon our decision in Harvey v. Clyde Park District, 32 Ill.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 573, asserts that the quoted legislation is violative of section 22 of article IV of the Illinois constitution, S.H.A., as special legislation affecting a classification scheme bearing 'no discernible relationship to the realities of life.' (32 Ill.2d at 67, 203 N.E.2d 577; see also Lorton v. Brown County Community Unit School District, 35 Ill.2d 362, 220 N.E.2d 161.) It is further maintained...