Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division
Rehearing denied October 7, 2016
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-L-5302; the
Hon. Eileen M. Brewer, Judge, presiding.
W. Lundblad and Anthony B. Gordon, both of Brustin &
Lundblad, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.
P. Smyrniotis and Heather L. Keil, both of Chicago Park
District, for appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court,
with opinion. Justices Pierce and Neville concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 Plaintiff Kristina Perez sued the Chicago Park District
after she was severely and permanently injured while at
Chicago's West Lawn Park when two men illegally set off
fireworks that exploded next to her. The trial court granted
the Park District's motion to dismiss under the Local
Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act
(Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. (West 2014)) and
denied Perez's oral request to file a fourth amended
2 We affirm. Perez failed to plead a cause of action for
willful and wanton conduct because (i) the fireworks were not
a "condition" of the Park District's property
under section 3-106 of the Act, (ii) the Park District never
"undertook to supervise" the fireworks under
section 3-108(a), (iii) the Park District had no common-law
duty to supervise the two men under section 3-108(b), and
(iv) the hazardous fireworks display was not
"conducted" by the Park District under section
3-109. And an amended complaint could not cure these defects.
4 On July 4, 2013, Kristina Perez went to West Lawn Park to
celebrate Independence Day. The Park District prohibits the
use of fireworks on public property without a permit, but
that did not stop Thomas Lagowski and Krzysztoff Gros from
illegally igniting fireworks, one of which exploded next to
Perez. She suffered injuries, causing amputation of her right
foot and part of her lower leg.
5 Perez sued the Park District, Lagowski, Gros, and the City
of Chicago. The Park District moved to dismiss under section
2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619
(West 2014)), arguing that the Act barred any claim against
it. Before the motion was fully briefed, Perez amended her
complaint twice more. Perez's third amended complaint, as
to the Park District, pled negligence (count I), willful and
wanton conduct (count II), willful and wanton conduct as
owner-occupier (count III), and strict liability for
hazardous activity (count IV). (After filing her third
amended complaint, Perez voluntarily dismissed the City of
Chicago and settled with Lagowski and Gros.) The Park
District did not file a new motion to dismiss but relied on
its original motion. The trial court dismissed the third
amended complaint with prejudice. Perez then made an oral
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which
the trial court denied.
7 As an initial matter, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 342(a)
requires an appellant's brief include "as an
appendix, *** a complete table of contents, with page
references, of the record on appeal." Ill. S.Ct. R.
342(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2005). The table of contents to
Perez's brief does not comply with Rule 342(a).
Perez's appellant brief does not contain a table of
contents to the record on appeal but instead ...