Court Opinion

ID: 9542850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:39:29.7106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:06.791259
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN, dissenting: The majority misconstrues sections 3 — 106 and 3 — 108 of the Tort Immunity Act. These sections of the Act apply to persons who claim injury by reason of being injured while on public property. In this case the plaintiffs are not claiming that they were injured while on public property, but rather that an improperly supervised activity on public property has caused damage to them in their right to the peace and enjoyment of their own property. In addition, plaintiffs have alleged that the “[defendant granted the use of the said athletic field to private persons carelessly failing to police the use to keep it under those provisions and that control which the Board had seen fit to impose in order that Plaintiffs and other neighbors might use and enjoy their land free from straying ball damage.” Surely defendant has no immunity when it permits private parties to conduct dangerous activities on public property which cause damage to those who own or occupy adjacent property. Then too, the type of activity complained of here is not covered by the Tort Immunity Act. Plaintiffs are really alleging that defendant is conducting a public nuisance on its property to the damage of the plaintiffs.