Opinion ID: 2215742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Availability of Summary Judgment

Text: Barnett contends that this is not a proper case for summary judgment. In reviewing a trial court's entry of summary judgment, the only issue on appeal is whether the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 1992). A court must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent. Review of summary judgment rulings is de novo. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill.2d 90, 102, 131-32, 180 Ill.Dec. 691, 607 N.E.2d 1204 (1992). Barnett argues that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude the entry of summary judgment. She labels as questions of fact whether the lifeguards committed willful and wanton misconduct and whether the lifeguards provided supervision within the meaning of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-108(b) (West 1992)). However, these issues ultimately involve interpreting the Tort Immunity Act, which is purely a matter of law and appropriate for summary judgment. See Lane v. Titchenel, 204 Ill.App.3d 1049, 1053, 150 Ill.Dec. 391, 562 N.E.2d 1194 (1990); Antonides v. Plascon, Inc., 103 Ill. App.3d 78, 81, 58 Ill.Dec. 500, 430 N.E.2d 532 (1981). Likewise, the related question of whether the District owed Travis a duty of care is a matter of law and appropriate for summary judgment. See Vesey v. Chicago Housing Authority, 145 Ill.2d 404, 411, 164 Ill.Dec. 622, 583 N.E.2d 538 (1991).