noting that “a legal duty is normally not established through rules * * * or internal guidelines”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “a legal duty is normally not established through rules * * * or internal guidelines”
- holding a park district's internal policies requiring a lifeguard to be on duty at all times did not create a legal duty to have one on duty at all times
- rejecting the plaintiffs argument that a legal duty arose from the defendant’s internal rules requiring that at least one lifeguard remain on duty during the adult swim period
- rejecting plaintiffs argument that the defendant’s internal rules requiring one lifeguard to remain on duty at all times created a legal duty to have one lifeguard on duty
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE BRESLIN, dissenting in part:
In my view, the Park District provided supervision within the meaning of section 3 — 108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act when it employed lifeguards who were on duty during the hours the pool was open. Therefore, I would hold that the Park District is immune to the plaintiff’s suit and I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs claim.