Woodman v. Litchfield Community School Dist. No. 12, Montgomery County, Gen. No. 67--69
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | EBERSPACHER |
| Citation | 102 Ill.App.2d 330,242 N.E.2d 780 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 67--69 |
| Parties | Pamela Fay WOODMAN, a Minor by Her Father and Next Friend, Thomas C. Woodman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LITCHFIELD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Illinois, Defendant-Appellee. |
Page 780
Thomas C. Woodman, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LITCHFIELD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.
Meyer & Meyer, Belleville, Delmer R. Mitchell, Jr., Belleville, for appellants.
[102 Ill.App.2d 331] Denby & Dobbs, Carlinville, Stuart Dobbs, Carlinville, of counsel, for appellee.
EBERSPACHER, Presiding Justice.
Plaintiff caused her complaint to be filed alleging that she was a child of eight years of age, and a second grade student in a school operated by defendant School District on March 1, 1966; that she was kicked
Page 781
in the head by a fellow student while she was performing the task of picking up papers off the floor of her classroom at the request of the teacher; that at the time of the injury the class was in session and the teacher permitted other students to move about the room in a disorderly fashion in the area where plaintiff was located; that plaintiff was severely and permanently injured when she was, while thus engaged, kicked in the head. The complaint alleges the teachers employment and charges the teacher as agent of defendant with numerous acts or omissions of carelessness and negligence in supervision of the pupils in the classroom, as proximate cause of the alleged injury.The defendant School District filed a motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action, based on the 1965, Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ch. 85, Sec. 1--101 et seq. Ill. Rev'd.Stat.1965) and particularly on Sec. 3--108(a) of the Act, the pertinent part of which is:
'Except as otherwise provided by this Act * * * neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a failure to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property.'
The trial court granted the motion to strike and granted plaintiff 30 days to amend. Plaintiff elected to stand on the complaint, and the court dismissed the cause of action, from which order plaintiff has appealed.
We find no reported cases interpreting the Employees Tort Immunity Act, supra, although excellent [102 Ill.App.2d 332] commentaries have been published since its enactment 1. Plaintiff contends that the sections of the Act under Article III deal exclusively with property conditions or use of public property and since the injury did not arise out of any alleged condition or use of school property, but only as a result of negligent conduct on that site to which the physical condition of the property or its use were insignificant, that Sec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernesak v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, No. 79-1517
...* * " on the part of the school and its agents. Defendant also relies upon Woodman v. Litchfield Comm. School Dist. (1968), 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780; Mancha v. Field Museum of Natural History (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 699, 283 N.E.2d 899; and Clay v. Board of Education (1974), 22 Ill.A......
-
Johnson v. Mers, Nos. 2-95-1234
...Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed (Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District No. 12, 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 332-33, 242 N.E.2d 780 Thus, because sections 2--201 and 3--108 do not specifically contain an exception to immunity for wilful and wan......
-
McCann v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection Dist., LISLE-WOODRIDGE
...cannot be held liable unless the employee is liable. (E.g., Woodman v. Litchfield Community Unit School District No. 12 (1968), 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780; Fustin v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 2 (1968), 101 Ill.App.2d 113, 242 N.E.2d 308.) However, thes......
-
Hampton v. City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, No. 72-1277
...Unit District No. 2, 101 Ill. App.2d 113, 242 N.E.2d 308 (5th Dist.1968), and Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District, No. 12, 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780 (5th...
-
Bernesak v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, No. 79-1517
...* * " on the part of the school and its agents. Defendant also relies upon Woodman v. Litchfield Comm. School Dist. (1968), 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780; Mancha v. Field Museum of Natural History (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 699, 283 N.E.2d 899; and Clay v. Board of Education (1974), 22 Ill.A......
-
Johnson v. Mers, Nos. 2-95-1234
...Immunity Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed (Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District No. 12, 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 332-33, 242 N.E.2d 780 Thus, because sections 2--201 and 3--108 do not specifically contain an exception to immunity for wilful and wan......
-
McCann v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection Dist., LISLE-WOODRIDGE
...cannot be held liable unless the employee is liable. (E.g., Woodman v. Litchfield Community Unit School District No. 12 (1968), 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780; Fustin v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 2 (1968), 101 Ill.App.2d 113, 242 N.E.2d 308.) However, thes......
-
Hampton v. City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, No. 72-1277
...Unit District No. 2, 101 Ill. App.2d 113, 242 N.E.2d 308 (5th Dist.1968), and Woodman v. Litchfield Community School District, No. 12, 102 Ill.App.2d 330, 242 N.E.2d 780 (5th...