ILCS » Chapter 745 · Act 65
Illinois Compiled Statutes

745 ILCS 65/6 (2026)

Nothing in this Act limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:         (a) For willful and wanton failure to guard or warn     against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 65/6) (from Ch. 70, par. 36)
    Sec. 6. Nothing in this Act limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
        (a) For willful and wanton failure to guard or warn
    
against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.
        (b) For injury suffered in any case where the owner
    
of land invites, as defined in subsection (f) of Section 2 of this Act, or charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.
    The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly apply only to causes of action accruing on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly.
(Source: P.A. 98-522, eff. 1-1-14.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1994–2010 · leading case: Hall v. Henn, 802 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. Henn, 802 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. 2003). “745 ILCS 65/6 (West 2002). As defined by the Act, “land” includes “roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.”
Hoye v. Illinois Power Co., 646 N.E.2d 651 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 4× “(745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1992).) A second exception to the application of the Recreational Use Act arises "where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Snyder v. Olmstead, 634 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “745 ILCS 65/6 (West 1992). The definitions of many terms within the Recreational Use Act are rather broad.”
Baggio v. Chicago Park Dist., 682 N.E.2d 429 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Furthermore, the Recreational Use Act is inapplicable "where the owner of the land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Joshua Cacia, a Minor, by & Through His Mother & Next Friend, Paula Randolph & Joseph C. Jerrick v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 290 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2002). “745 ILCS 65/3. Section 6 of the Act, referenced in the aforementioned text, states that the Act’s limitation of liability does not extend to a “willful or wanton failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.”
Moon v. Smith, 658 N.E.2d 856 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “36) (now codified, as amended, at 745 ILCS 65/6 (West 1994)).) Thus, it appears the legislature was making it clear that the term "willful,” as used in the Use Act as well as the Snowmobile Act, refers to a legal term of art, not a layman’s definition of the term; that is, that…”
Vaughn v. Barton, 933 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “s political subdivisions, or person in control of the premises” (745 ILCS 65/2(b) (West 2002)), are only liable under two circumstances: (1) “[f|or willful and wanton failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity” or (2) for any injury…”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, 721 N.E.2d 1143 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Nor does limited liability extend to “injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, Inc., 703 N.E.2d 573 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “” 745 ILCS 65/6 (West 1994). For example, section 3 of the Recreational Use Act (745 ILCS 65/3 (West 1994)) immunizes a landowner from liability (if the landowner has not acted willfully and wantonly and has not charged persons to enter or go on the land) by providing, in…”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, Inc. (Ill. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Nor does limited liability extend to “injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof .”
Baggio v. Chicago Park Dist. (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “745 ILCS 65/6(a)(West 1994). Furthermore, the Recreational Use Act is inapplicable "where the owner of the land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Hall v. Henn (Ill. 2003). “745 ILCS 65/6 (West 2002). As defined by the Act, “land” includes “roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 745 ILCS 65/6(a) — 6 cases
Joshua Cacia, a Minor, by & Through His Mother & Next Friend, Paula Randolph & Joseph C. Jerrick v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 290 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2002). “745 ILCS 65/3. Section 6 of the Act, referenced in the aforementioned text, states that the Act’s limitation of liability does not extend to a “willful or wanton failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.”
Hoye v. Illinois Power Co., 646 N.E.2d 651 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1992).) A second exception to the application of the Recreational Use Act arises "where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Baggio v. Chicago Park Dist., 682 N.E.2d 429 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Furthermore, the Recreational Use Act is inapplicable "where the owner of the land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, 721 N.E.2d 1143 (Ill. 1999). “” 745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Nor does limited liability extend to “injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, Inc. (Ill. 1999). “” 745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Nor does limited liability extend to “injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof .”
— 745 ILCS 65/6(b) — 5 cases
Hoye v. Illinois Power Co., 646 N.E.2d 651 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1992).) A second exception to the application of the Recreational Use Act arises "where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Baggio v. Chicago Park Dist., 682 N.E.2d 429 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Furthermore, the Recreational Use Act is inapplicable "where the owner of the land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, 721 N.E.2d 1143 (Ill. 1999). “” 745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Nor does limited liability extend to “injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, Inc. (Ill. 1999). “” 745 ILCS 65/6(a) (West 1994). Nor does limited liability extend to “injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof .”
Baggio v. Chicago Park Dist. (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “745 ILCS 65/6(a)(West 1994). Furthermore, the Recreational Use Act is inapplicable "where the owner of the land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.”
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.