Blankenship v. Peoria Park District

33 Citing cases

  1. Barnett v. Zion Park District

    171 Ill. 2d 378 (Ill. 1996)   Cited 219 times
    Holding that the plaintiff had waived appellate review of previously dismissed claims by failing to "reallege or otherwise incorporate those [claims] in her third, fourth, or fifth amended complaint"

    See Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill.2d 278, 288 (1984); Brumm v. Goodall, 16 Ill. App.2d 212, 224-25 (1958); Decatur Amusement Park Co. v. Porter, 137 Ill. App. 448, 452 (1907). The appellate court in this case, agreeing with Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill. App.3d 416 (1994), reasoned that since the District is as liable in tort as a private tortfeasor absent an immunity statute (see LaMonte, 41 Ill. App. 3 d at 705), then the District likewise owed Travis a duty of reasonable care. 267 Ill. App.3d at 288; Blankenship, 269 Ill. App.3d at 419-21.

  2. Yarborough v. City of Springfield

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 150336 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    Morton, 286 Ill. App. 3d 444, 454, 676 N.E.2d 985, 992. As the case does not cite authority supporting its position, we find Hudson unpersuasive.¶ 72 Defendant relies on Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill. App. 3d 416, 422-23, 647 N.E.2d 287, 291 (1994). Blankenship involved a decedent's estate bringing suit against the Peoria Park District, alleging the defendant's failure to supervise a swimming pool caused the decedent's death.

  3. Barnett v. Ludwig Company

    2011 Ill. App. 2d 101053 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 10 times

    ” Id. at 287–88, 80 Ill.Dec. 40, 464 N.E.2d 1023. ¶ 42 In Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill.App.3d 416, 207 Ill.Dec. 325, 647 N.E.2d 287 (1995), the legislature's action in the matter of swimming pools was one of the appellate court's bases for refusing to hold that the defendant, a park district, had a common-law duty to supervise adult swimmers in its pool. The trial court in Blankenship had dismissed, for failure to state a cause of action, the plaintiff's complaint alleging that the park district was liable because the decedent drowned in its pool while the lifeguards on duty were on break.

  4. Beaulieu v. WalMart

    2022 Ill. App. 2d 210632 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    Rather, it is the law which, in the end, must say what is legally required. See Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill.App.3d 416, 422 (1994) (park district's internal rules requiring one lifeguard to remain on duty at all times did not create a legal duty to have one lifeguard on duty); Fillpot v. Midway Airlines, Inc., 261 Ill.App.3d 237, 244 (1994) (where airline owed no legal duty to remove snow or ice, airline's policy manual requiring the clearing of walkways did not create such a duty).

  5. Geimer v. Chicago Park District

    272 Ill. App. 3d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Recognizing common-law rule that municipalities are not liable in tort and owe no duty to individual members of the general public for failure to enforce local laws and ordinances

    Curtis v. County of Cook (1983), 98 Ill.2d 158, 456 N.E.2d 116. A case similar to the instant matter is Blankenship v. Peoria Park District (1994), 269 Ill. App.3d 416, in which the court specifically rejected the plaintiff's claim that internal rules created a duty on the part of the park district to supervise adult swimmers. Blankenship stated, " '[A] legal duty is normally not established through rules * * * or internal guidelines.

  6. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

    36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 228 times
    Finding that the bar instead owed a minimally burdensome duty to protect the assaulted patron based on events unfolding in the immediate presence of the bar's security staff

    Section 323 addresses cases concerning a duty assumed by a defendant to another. (See Williams, supra, 34 Cal.3d 18, 23; see also Blankenship v. Peoria Park Dist. (Ill.Ct.App. 1994) 269 Ill.App.3d 416 [ 647 N.E.2d 287, 291-292, 207 Ill.Dec. 325] [swimming pool operator undertook duty to provide lifeguard to protect adult swimmer]; Feld v. Merriam (1984) 506 Pa. 383 [ 485 A.2d 742, 746-747] [apartment complex landlord undertook duty to provide security guards]; Wilson v. Texas Parks andWildlife Dept. (Tex. 1999) 8 S.W.3d 634, 635-636 [43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 634] [park district undertook to provide siren warning of impending flood]; Nelson by and Through Stuckman v. Salt LakeCity (Utah 1996) 919 P.2d 568, 573 [state undertook to erect and maintain fence between park and nearby river].) Similarly, section 324A of the Restatement addresses cases concerning a duty assumed by a defendant to third persons.

  7. Dietch v. Carl Sandburg Vill. Home Owners Ass'n

    2015 Ill. App. 140717 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Fichtel v. Board of Directors of the River Shore of Naperville Condominium Ass'n, Hillcrest Management Co., 389 Ill. App. 3d 951, 959-60 (2009) (quoting Shank v. H. C. Fields, 373 Ill. App. 3d 290, 296-97 (2007), quoting Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213, 238 (1996)). In Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill. App. 3d 416 (1994), the reviewing court held that the park district's internal rule requiring one lifeguard to remain on duty at all times did not create a legal duty to have one lifeguard on duty. The court observed that, "[w]hile the violation of a statute or ordinance designed to protect human life or property is prima facie evidence of negligence [citations], 'a legal duty is normally not established through rules *** or internal guidelines[.

  8. Shank v. H.C. Fields

    373 Ill. App. 3d 290 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Rather, it is the law which, in the end, must say what is legally required. See Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill. App. 3d 416, 422[, 647 N.E.2d 287, 291] (1994) (park district's internal rules requiring one lifeguard to remain on duty at all times did not create a legal duty to have one lifeguard on duty); Fillpot v. Midway Airlines, Inc., 261 Ill. App. 3d 237, 244[, 633 N.E.2d 237, 242] (1994) (where airline owed no legal duty to remove snow or ice, airline's policy manual requiring the clearing of walkways did not create such a duty); Mattice v. Goodman, 173 Ill. App. 3d 236, 240[, 527 N.E.2d 469, 472] (1988) (where building owners owed no legal duty to assist elderly person through door, no such duty was created by building owner's employment of an employee who, in accordance with his job description, customarily assisted elderly persons through the door)." Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213, 238, 665 N.E.2d 1260, 1272 (1996) (no duty to promptly assist intoxicated individual discovered in warming house of commuter train system).

  9. Repede v. Community Unit School District

    779 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Cheerleading practice

    However, the existence of a duty and the existence of immunity are separate issues. Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill. App. 3d 416, 421 (1994). Morever, failing to comply with self-imposed regulations does not generally impose a legal duty on a governmental defendant.

  10. Robinson v. the Chicago Park Dist

    757 N.E.2d 565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    In this case it was an uncontested fact that there were two lifeguards on deck, and therefore, immunity was triggered and a directed verdict was proper. Plaintiff argues that Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill. App.3d 416, 647 N.E.2d 287 (1994) carves out an exception to the blanket immunity provided under Barnett. Specifically, plaintiff maintains that when the conduct of the lifeguards constitutes a "complete lack of supervision" the Act does not apply.