Introduction
From school districts to townships, road districts, cities, and other public bodies, local governments regularly face claims alleging inadequate supervision, unsafe conditions, or failure to protect individuals from injury. When these lawsuits arise, the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/) (the “Act”) plays a central role in determining whether liability exists.
On November 20, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion in Haase v. Kankakee School District 111, reaffirming how strictly courts apply immunity to governments and their employees, and how high the bar remains for liability to result. This decision serves as a valuable reminder for all units of local government about what actions are protected and what practices help reduce liability exposure.
Key Immunity Provisions
Three provisions of the Act, Sections 3-108, 2-109, and 2-201 were examined in Haase and are frequently invoked by townships, municipalities, and similar local bodies.
Section 3-108 grants immunity to public entities and employees for negligent supervision of activities or public property, unless their conduct is willful and wanton, meaning intentional harm or a conscious disregard for others’ safety. This is especially relevant for governments overseeing programs, recreational events, or volunteers.
Section 2-201 protects employees when they make discretionary or policy decisions, such as setting road-maintenance priorities, making staffing choices, or directing public works. Section 2-109 provides that if an employee is not liable, the governmental entity cannot be held liable either, preventing plaintiffs from avoiding employee immunity by suing the public body directly.
The Case
The Haase case arose from an injury sustained during a gym class soccer game, where one student was hurt after another engaged in rough conduct. The complaint alleged that the teacher failed to adequately supervise the activity and that the school district was responsible for this inattention. The plaintiffs tried to characterize the teacher’s conduct as willful and wanton, based on the assertion that the teacher ignored the misbehaving student’s prior disciplinary history and failed to intervene during the game.
The Illinois Supreme Court rejected those arguments, emphasizing that the evidence showed the teacher did not know about any prior history of physical aggression, and no policy required him to review such information. Moreover, the Court explained that even if the teacher was inattentive or careless, these actions amounted only to negligence, not willful and wanton conduct. Negligent supervision is the type of conduct the legislature intended to immunize under Section 3-108 of the Act. As such, the Court held that the defendants had established they were immune from liability.
Why Haase Matters Beyond Schools and Practical Guidance for Local Units of Government
While Haase involved a school, the Court’s reasoning underscores principles that are directly applicable to all local government entities, including townships, municipalities, road districts, water reclamation districts, etc.
Illinois courts maintain a very high threshold for finding willful and wanton conduct. What this means for local governments is that ordinary allegations of poor supervision, delayed response, or imperfect decision-making are generally not enough to impose liability. Whether it is a township supervising a public event, running a food drive or pantry, recycling program, or senior center, an injured plaintiff must show far more than carelessness.
The Haase decision underscores several practical steps local governments can take to strengthen their immunity protections and reduce exposure to litigation:
- Maintaining clear, written policies on supervision, safety communication, and employee discretion to show actions were within reasonable judgment.
- Document supervisory actions (incident logs, maintenance records, reports) to show monitoring occurred and to counter claims of willful and wanton conduct.
- Training employees on supervision expectations and the difference between negligence and willful and wanton conduct so they may act accordingly.
Together, these points reinforce the need for local governments to tailor policies that align with the nuanced distinctions courts draw when interpreting governmental immunity.
Take-Aways
The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Haase reinforces the broad protections the Act affords local governments and their employees. While the case arose in a school setting, its principles apply equally to townships, municipalities, park districts, road districts, and similar bodies. The ruling confirms that ordinary negligent supervision does not defeat immunity while underscoring that balanced policies, communication, training, and documentation are essential to maintaining immunity and strong legal defenses.
For questions about the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com or Jacob Sauter at jsauter@airdowerwas.com.