Christopher Basken, on behalf of his minor son E.B., sued Greenfields Academy, a private school in Chicago, after E.B. was struck by a car while crossing Elston Avenue during the school’s after-school program. Greenfields Academy operated across the street from Brands Park, a public park used regularly for student recreation, requiring children to cross a busy roadway at a marked crosswalk. On the day of the accident in November 2019, E.B., who was five years old, was part of a small group of children escorted by a single after-school guide. The guide entered the crosswalk carrying a handheld stop sign and began the process of stopping traffic when E.B. ran into the roadway before being signaled to cross and was hit by a passing vehicle, suffering serious injuries including a fractured ankle and a traumatic brain injury.
Basken alleged that Greenfields was negligent and engaged in willful and wanton misconduct by allowing only one adult to supervise children crossing a heavily traveled street, failing to adopt a written street-crossing safety policy, and failing to provide additional safety equipment such as reflective vests or other visibility tools. Greenfields moved to dismiss the negligence claims, arguing that Illinois law grants schools immunity from ordinary negligence claims arising out of student supervision. The trial court agreed and dismissed the negligence counts, concluding that the claims arose from discretionary supervision decisions protected by statutory immunity.
The parties then proceeded with discovery on the willful and wanton misconduct claims. After discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment in Greenfields’ favor, finding that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the School acted with utter indifference or conscious disregard for student safety. The trial court determined that, at most, the record supported a negligence claim, which was barred under the immunity law. Basken appealed both rulings.
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. It held that Illinois law extends immunity to both public and private schools for ordinary negligence claims tied to the supervision and control of students, and that decisions about staffing levels, crossing procedures, and safety equipment fall squarely within that protected supervisory function. Although Basken characterized the claims as independent negligence by the School, the appellate court concluded they fundamentally challenged how students were supervised during a school-related activity, not unsafe premises or defective equipment provided to students.
The appellate court also agreed that the willful and wanton misconduct claims failed as a matter of law. It explained that willful and wanton conduct requires evidence of a conscious disregard of a known, serious danger, not merely the possibility that additional precautions could have been taken. The record showed that Greenfields selected the crossing location after observing traffic conditions, trained staff on a crossing procedure, and provided a handheld stop sign to enhance visibility. There was no evidence of prior accidents, complaints, or warnings suggesting the crossing posed a known heightened risk. While expert testimony suggested that best practices might have included additional staff or equipment, the Court emphasized that hindsight disagreement over safety measures does not establish reckless indifference.
Because the evidence demonstrated that Greenfields exercised considered supervisory judgment rather than ignoring a known danger, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the negligence claims and summary judgment on the willful and wanton misconduct claims.
Basken v. Cordero-Dennis, 2025 ILApp (1st) 231708-U.
Note: This decision illustrates the strong protection Illinois law affords public and private schools for claims arising from student supervision. California does not have a similar law to protect private schools, and so the outcome of the case may have been different had this occurred in California.