holding that defendants were immune from liability for “ordinary negligence” but not for “willful and wanton misconduct”
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendants were immune from liability for “ordinary negligence” but not for “willful and wanton misconduct”
- noting that courts “cannot restrict or enlarge the meaning of an unambiguous statute” or “rewrite statutes to make them consistent with the court’s idea of orderliness and public policy”
- holding the defendant school district had a “vested right” to the immunity provided by the statute before the amendment
- finding a school district’s right to the total immunity as a defense vested when the cause of action accrued
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE RATHJE, also dissenting:
I agree with the legal analysis set forth in Justice Harrison’s dissent to the majority’s original opinion. Unlike Justice Harrison, however, I would not ascribe an “utter disregard for children” to my colleagues in the majority simply because they reach a conclusion different from my own.
I also agree with Justice Harrison’s supplemental dissent that the Illinois Constitution in no way precludes the application of the amended section 3 — 108 to this case. I likewise dissent.