Blog

The Takeaway

In a recent ruling,[1] an Illinois appellate court affirmed that local governments are immune from liability for injuries occurring on their properties when a plaintiff is not an intended and permitted user or when hazardous conditions on a property are open and obvious.

Case Background

Plaintiff Amanda Wright visited her brother at his home in Gurnee to play badminton. The two set up the net in a lightly wooded, grassy area adjacent to her brother’s home. That property was owned by Gurnee Park District, the defendant. Before the game, her brother warned her to be careful because there was an area with tall grass. Plaintiff thought she needed to be wary of a shrub. However, when she went to retrieve the shuttlecock that landed near the shrub, the shrub was in fact a tree stump covered by tall grass. Plaintiff fell over the tree stump and broke her wrist.

She filed suit against the Gurnee Park District for willful and wanton conduct for its alleged failure to maintain the property and for failure to remove or grind down the tree stump.

The Park District sought summary judgment for three reasons. First, it asserted it was immune from liability under the Tort Immunity Act because plaintiff was not an intended and permitted user of the property. Second, it maintained the tree stump was an open and obvious hazard. Third, the District contended its actions were not willful and wanton.

In granting the Park District’s motion, the lower court addressed two of those issues. It found that plaintiff was not the intended and permitted user of the property, and it agreed that the stump was an open and obvious hazard.

Appellate Court’s Ruling

In affirming summary judgment, the appellate court identified two ordinances that supported the Park District’s contention that plaintiff was not the intended user of the area where she fell. The first ordinance prohibits individuals from “erecting” “play equipment” on Park District property without written authorization from the Park District. The second prohibits people from conducting an “organized sporting event” as part of any gathering. In addition, the Park District maintains a rule stating that “Games and Sports are allowed in designated areas only.”

The appellate court agreed that the property behind the plaintiff’s brother’s home was owned by the Park District. Because the area had no signs indicating it was meant for sports, it held that plaintiff was not an intended user of the property for her game of badminton.

The court also affirmed that the Park District was immune from liability because the tree stump was an open and obvious hazard. Plaintiff was warned to be careful on the property. Furthermore, she testified at her deposition that some areas were unkempt and overgrown. While she may not have known that a tree stump was underneath the grass, the court held that she reasonably knew something was present, which required her to proceed with caution.

[1] Wright v. Gurnee Park District, 2025 IL App (2d) 240687