Opinion ID: 2166487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: duty to provide safety equipment

Text: The majority acknowledges the disastrous consequences of its decision, remarking that under its view of the Act, a school district would enjoy immunity if, for example, it provided its football players with leather helmets or, worse yet, no helmets at all. 198 Ill.2d at 487, 261 Ill.Dec. at 515, 763 N.E.2d at 764. The majority then attempts to justify that conclusion as inescapable under the existing state of the law. 198 Ill.2d at 488, 261 Ill.Dec. at 516, 763 N.E.2d at 765, While I agree with the majority's assessment that legislative attention to the scope of discretionary immunity is desperately needed, I take no solace in the fact that the legislature may remedy the situation. The outcome of this particular case was controlled by a line of precedent implicitly overturned by the majority. By its decision, the majority has effectively abrogated a school district's duty to provide safety equipment to protect students from serious injury during school athletic activities. For this reason and for the reasons expressed above, I respectfully dissent.