Court Opinion

ID: 9725664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:58:31.091614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:17.654404
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BRESLIN, dissenting: Because I believe that providing football helmets to students is a ministerial act that must be carried out with ordinary care, I respectfully dissent. Lincolnway asserts that the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1—101 et seq. (West 1994)) provides immunity in this case because, although it had a duty to provide a helmet, whether or not to provide a Shockblocker II was a discretionary act. It relies on Bowers v. Du Page County Regional Board of School Trustees District No. 4, 183 Ill. App. 3d 367, 539 N.E.2d 246 (1989). In Bowers, the court held that the provision of equipment for physical education classes was a discretionary act over which the school board enjoyed immunity. The court reasoned that since the School Code did not direct that the board use or supply particular equipment, the provision of equipment was a discretionary act to which the Tort Immunity Act applied. I disagree. School districts have long had the duty to provide safety equipment for athletic activities (Palmer v. Mt. Vernon Township High School District 201, 169 Ill. 2d 551, 662 N.E.2d 1260 (1996)), including football helmets and face guards for football games. Lynch v. Board of Education of Collinsville Community Unit District No. 10, 82 Ill. 2d 415, 412 N.E.2d 447 (1980). Acting pursuant to that duty is acting ministerially. See Thomas v. Chicago Board of Education, 60 Ill. App. 3d 729, 377 N.E.2d 55 (1978), rev’d on other grounds, 77 Ill. 2d 165, 395 N.E.2d 55 (1979) (furnishing of equipment is a function separate and apart from discretionary authority). Although some elements of discretion may be present, inherent in the performance of every ministerial act is an element of discretion. See Bonnell v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 258 Ill. App. 3d 485, 630 N.E.2d 547 (1994). In my opinion, since the board was required to provide helmets to students, doing so was a ministerial act that must be carried out with ordinary care. Therefore, I would hold that the board was not granted immunity by the Tort Immunity Act.