Court Opinion

ID: 9720464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:31:25.790808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:18.679658
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring: I concur with the majority’s conclusion that section 24 — 24 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/24 — 24 (West 1994)) and section 3 — 108(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3 — 108(a) (West 1994)) do not conflict. However, the majority’s rationale is wrong. The two provisions at issue in this case both grant immunity to a defendant where a plaintiff alleges ordinary negligence. However, whereas section 24 — 24 of the Code grants immunity for ordinary negligence only, section 3 — 108(a) of the Act grants immunity for both ordinary negligence and willful and wanton conduct. Thus, where ordinary negligence is alleged, either the Code or the Act may be raised as an affirmative defense, and the two provisions do not conflict. Rather, they simply complement each other. Where a plaintiff alleges willful and wanton conduct, however, section 3 — 108(a) of the Act is alone available as an affirmative defense. That is because section 24 — 24 of the Code does not immunize willful and wanton conduct. On the other hand, neither does it create liability for willful and wanton conduct. It simply has no application in that situation. That is to say, section 3 — 108(a) of the Act does not conflict with section 24 — 24 of the Code; the Act merely grants a greater immunity than the Code. Consequently, the Act controls the disposition in the case at hand. Thus, I concur with the judgment of the court but not its opinion.