After the accident, the car did not have any braking problems. Plaintiffs also alleged that Shannon negligently failed to instruct and supervise Aguilera on the safe operation of the car. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and Shannon, finding that since Shannon was not driving the car at the time of the accident, any negligence plaintiffs attribute to Shannon arises from his supervision of Aguilera and is therefore immunized under section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act. The claims against Aguilera remain pending and are not at issue in this appeal. Plaintiffs concede that summary judgment was properly granted as to their allegation that Shannon negligently failed to instruct and supervise the student on the safe operation of the car.
Plaintiffs also concede their claim that defendants negligently maintained the brakes.
However, plaintiffs assert that summary judgment was improperly granted on their allegations that Shannon negligently operated and controlled the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable, failed to stop in compliance with traffic control signals, and failed to keep a proper lookout. Plaintiffs contend that defendants are not immunized from these claims since the claims are based not on Shannon's negligent supervision of the student s driving, but on Shannon's personal failure as co-driver of the car to prevent it from crashing into plaintiffs. We are not persuaded by plaintiffs' argument that Shannon's duty to plaintiffs arose by virtue of Shannon being a co-driver of the car. Nor are we persuaded by defendants' claim that because Shannon was not the driver of the car, he owed no duty to plaintiffs. As defendants point out in their brief, there are circumstances in which a passenger in a vehicle owes a duty to a third person.