State appellate court finds public entities immune from negligence claim brought by plaintiff after falling on icy public sidewalk

A state appellate court found the Clarendon Hills Park District and Village of Clarendon Hills had statutory immunity from negligence action brought by plaintiff who fell on an icy sidewalk lying adjacent to a public park.

The court, in Callaghan v. Village of Clarendon Hills, No. 2-09-0482 (2d Dist. 2010), held the sidewalk fell within the scope of immunity for injuries sustained on recreational property under the Local Government Tort Immunity Act because the sidewalk was intended to provide access to the park.  It then upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss plaintiff's negligence claim.

Generally, a public entity must exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. However, section 3-106 of the Act provides immunity for public entities and public employees where liability is based on "the existence of a condition of any public property intended or permitted to be used for recreational purposes, including but not limited to parks playgrounds, open areas, buildings or other enclosed recreational facilities." 745 ILCS 10/3-106. The provision precludes liability unless the entity or employee is guilty of willful or wanton conduct that proximately caused the injury. Id. 

The court, citing Sylvester v. Chicago Park District, 179 Ill.2d 500 (1997), noted that property that increases the usefulness of property intended or permitted to be used for recreational purposes may fall under the protection of the provision. While the sidewalk itself was not recreational property, the provision applied because the circumstances as a whole indicated the sidewalk was intended to provide access to, and therefore increase the usefulness of the park.

The fact that the village, not the park district, owned the sidewalk did not preclude this finding. While park district ownership could weigh in favor of finding of recreational property, this fact was not dispositive on the applicability of section 3-106. Furthermore, the fact that the park district maintained the sidewalk indicated that it was intended for recreational purposes. 

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that section 3-106 did not apply because the park's legal description did not include the sidewalk, noting that Sylvester does not require a sidewalk to be within the bounds of recreational property for the section to apply.  

In addition, the court found the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's count alleging defendants' willful and wanton conduct. To support a finding of willful and wanton conduct, the plaintiff must plead facts supporting an inference that the defendants were informed of the dangerous condition on the recreational property, knew that others had been injured as a result of the dangerous condition, or intentionally removed a safety devise or feature from the recreational property. The court than dismissed plaintiff's claim, finding her allegations did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct.