ILCS » Chapter 745 · Act 10
Illinois Compiled Statutes

745 ILCS 10/3-108 (2026)

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee who undertakes to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property is liable for an injury unless the local public entity or public employee is guilty of willful and wanton conduct in its supervision proximately causing such injury

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 10/3-108) (from Ch. 85, par. 3-108)
    Sec. 3-108. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee who undertakes to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property is liable for an injury unless the local public entity or public employee is guilty of willful and wanton conduct in its supervision proximately causing such injury.
    (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a failure to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property unless the employee or the local public entity has a duty to provide supervision imposed by common law, statute, ordinance, code or regulation and the local public entity or public employee is guilty of willful and wanton conduct in its failure to provide supervision proximately causing such injury.
(Source: P.A. 90-805, eff. 12-2-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Henrich v. Libertyville High Sch., 712 N.E.2d 298 (Ill. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henrich v. Libertyville High Sch., 712 N.E.2d 298 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 10× “December 2, 1998 (amending 745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 1994)). The amended section 3-108 expressly allows claims of willful and wanton misconduct against local public entities and employees such as contained in count I of plaintiff's complaint.”
Barnett v. Zion Park Dist., 665 N.E.2d 808 (Ill. 1996). · cites it 9× “(b) Where a local public entity or public employee designates a part of public property to be used for purposes of swimming and establishes and designates by notice posted upon the premises the hours for such use, the entity or public employee is liable only for an injury…”
Doe-3 v. McLean Cnty. Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 (Ill. 2012). · cites it 3× “” 745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 1992).8 8 The current version of section 3-108 states: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee who undertakes to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property is liable for an…”
Floyd Ex Rel. Floyd v. Rockford Park Dist., 823 N.E.2d 1004 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “1 (West 2002)), contending, among other things, that they were immune from liability pursuant to section 3-108 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act) (745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2002)) because plaintiff failed to plead specific facts amounting…”
Vill. of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enter., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 1090 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 3× “2d 298 ; see 745 ILCS 10/3-108 ( West 1998 ). We turn now to the instant case, where CDG asks that we impose the common law exception for "corrupt or malicious motives" onto certain provisions of the Act.”
Barr v. Cunningham, 2017 IL 120751 (Ill. 2017). · cites it 5× “The court held that plaintiff failed to prove during his case-in-chief that defendants' conduct was willful and wanton, an exception to the supervisory immunity set forth in section 3-108 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act).”
In Re Chicago Flood Litig., 680 N.E.2d 265 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 2× “In addition to relying on the plain language of section 3-108(a), the court additionally concluded that the City's supervision of Great Lakes' pile driving constituted a discretionary activity that immunized the City from liability.”
Spangenberg v. Verner, 747 N.E.2d 359 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 3× “Additionally, the court found that sections 3-108 and 3-109 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 1996); 745 ILCS 10/3-109 (West 1998)) provided immunity for the Park District as to count III.”
Capps v. Belleville Sch. Dist. No. 201, 730 N.E.2d 81 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 5× “Whether the School District is afforded the immunity of section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2-201 (West 1998)) where, according to the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff stepped off the side of an accessibility ramp while exiting a school gymnasium.”
Doe 20 v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 5, 680 F. Supp. 2d 957 (C.D. Ill. 2010). · cites it 3× “s DISMISSED as a party from Count Seven for failure to state a claim; 5) Count Nine is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; 6) Count Eleven is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; 7) Counts Sixteen and Seventeen are DISMISSED because of 745 ILCS 10/2-201 immunity; 8)…”
Rozsavolgyi v. The City of Aurora, 2017 IL 121048 (Ill. 2017). “745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2014). The City's fourth affirmative defense asserts discretionary immunity under section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act as to counts I and IV.”
Barr v. Cunningham, 2017 IL 120751 (Ill. 2018). · cites it 4× “745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 2010). The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed and remanded for a new trial.”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— 745 ILCS 10/3-108(a) — 61 cases
Henrich v. Libertyville High Sch., 712 N.E.2d 298 (Ill. 1999). “December 2, 1998 (amending 745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 1994)). The amended section 3-108 expressly allows claims of willful and wanton misconduct against local public entities and employees such as contained in count I of plaintiff's complaint.”
Vill. of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enter., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 1090 (Ill. 2001). “2d 298 ; see 745 ILCS 10/3-108 ( West 1998 ). We turn now to the instant case, where CDG asks that we impose the common law exception for "corrupt or malicious motives" onto certain provisions of the Act.”
In Re Chicago Flood Litig., 680 N.E.2d 265 (Ill. 1997). “In addition to relying on the plain language of section 3-108(a), the court additionally concluded that the City's supervision of Great Lakes' pile driving constituted a discretionary activity that immunized the City from liability.”
Capps v. Belleville Sch. Dist. No. 201, 730 N.E.2d 81 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “Whether the School District is afforded the immunity of section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2-201 (West 1998)) where, according to the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff stepped off the side of an accessibility ramp while exiting a school gymnasium.”
Doe-3 v. McLean Cnty. Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 (Ill. 2012). “” 745 ILCS 10/3-108 (West 1992).8 8 The current version of section 3-108 states: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, neither a local public entity nor a public employee who undertakes to supervise an activity on or the use of any public property is liable for an…”
— 745 ILCS 10/3-108(b) — 4 cases
Barnett v. Zion Park Dist., 665 N.E.2d 808 (Ill. 1996). “(b) Where a local public entity or public employee designates a part of public property to be used for purposes of swimming and establishes and designates by notice posted upon the premises the hours for such use, the entity or public employee is liable only for an injury…”
Robinson v. Chicago Park Dist. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Dixon v. Chicago Bd. of Ed. (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Trotter v. Sch. Dist. 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.