When a child comes home from school with more than a scraped knee—a concussion from an unsupervised hallway fight, a serious fall from broken playground equipment, a severe allergic reaction that wasn't treated in time—parents are left asking a question that can be surprisingly hard to answer: Is the school responsible?
In Illinois, the answer depends on several factors, including whether the school is public or private, who was involved, and which legal duties and immunities apply under the circumstances.
In Loco Parentis: The Foundation of the School's Duty
In many school-injury cases involving student supervision and discipline, Illinois courts look to the in loco parentis relationship reflected in the School Code.
This concept is not simply a general principle. It is codified directly in the Illinois School Code. Section 24-24 states:
"In all matters relating to the discipline in and conduct of the schools and the school children, they stand in the relation of parents and guardians to the pupils. This relationship shall extend to all activities connected with the school program, including all athletic and extracurricular programs, and may be exercised at any time for the safety and supervision of the pupils in the absence of their parents or guardians." (105 ILCS 5/24-24)
In practical terms, Illinois law recognizes that covered school personnel exercise supervisory authority similar to that of a parent in matters of student discipline, safety, and school-related activities. This relationship can affect both the duty analysis and the scope of immunity available to certain school employees and, in public-school cases, to public entities under the Tort Immunity Act.
The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted Section 24-24 to provide significant protection against ordinary-negligence claims for covered school personnel in supervision- and discipline-related situations, with willful and wanton conduct often serving as the higher threshold in those cases. In many supervision-related claims, a plaintiff must allege willful and wanton conduct rather than ordinary negligence, although the applicable standard depends on the claim and the defendant involved.
In many cases against a public school—especially those involving student supervision—alleging ordinary negligence alone may not be sufficient, and the plaintiff may need to satisfy a higher standard or overcome statutory immunities.
Scenario 1: Unsupervised Roughhousing & Traumatic Brain Injuries
Traumatic brain injuries can occur in school settings, including during unstructured or unsupervised activities. They occur in hallways during passing periods, in locker rooms, in gyms during unstructured time, and on playgrounds. Some involve situations where the adequacy of supervision may become a central issue in evaluating liability.
The absence of supervision, by itself, may not be sufficient to establish liability, particularly in claims requiring proof of willful and wanton conduct. The 2025 Illinois Supreme Court decision in Haase v. Kankakee School District 111, 2025 IL 131420, made this especially clear. In that case, a seventh-grade student suffered a serious injury during gym class. The plaintiff alleged that the teacher had been inattentive and that a student with a history of violence was not properly controlled. The Court upheld dismissal of the case, finding that a teacher who "clearly was not" as attentive as desirable during a routine activity had engaged in negligent — not willful and wanton — supervision.
Courts have identified certain factors that may support a finding of willful and wanton conduct in supervision cases. Factors that may be relevant include whether school staff had notice of a student’s dangerous behavior or whether the activity involved heightened risks that required closer supervision.
For TBI cases specifically, this has concrete implications. In many cases, the analysis will include what the school knew—or reasonably should have known—before the incident. Relevant considerations may include:
- Had the student who caused the injury previously assaulted, threatened, or been disciplined for violence toward other students, and were those records known to school staff?
- Had prior fights or physical altercations occurred in the same location, suggesting an ongoing supervisory failure that the administration was aware of?
- Did the school district have a specific safety policy—a supervision protocol, a hall monitor schedule, a code of conduct—that was violated on the day of the injury?
- Were teachers or administrators physically absent from an area they were assigned to supervise?
Prior documentation of dangerous conduct by a specific student, combined with the school's failure to act on that documented knowledge, can be an important factor in evaluating a potential claim. Schools may have a duty to take reasonable steps to address known risks. Courts have, in some cases, found that failure to act after notice of a specific danger may support a finding of willful and wanton conduct.
Scenario 2: Playground Accidents on Broken Equipment
In Illinois, the specific immunity provision for playgrounds is Section 3-106 of the Tort Immunity Act, which immunizes public entities from liability for injuries occurring on "public property intended or permitted to be used for recreational purposes, including but not limited to parks, playgrounds, open areas, buildings or other enclosed recreational facilities" unless the local public entity is guilty of willful and wanton conduct. (745 ILCS 10/3-106)
Illinois courts have held that school playgrounds may fall within this provision when they are used for recreational purposes. (Sidwell v. Griggsville Community School District, 145 Ill. 2d 448 (1992)) As a result, a child injured on a broken piece of playground equipment at a Chicago public school may not be sufficient, on its own, to establish liability under the willful and wanton standard. A central question in many cases is what the school knew—or reasonably should have known—about the hazard and how it responded.
A defective swing that broke without warning during first-time use is a very different legal case than a swing that had been reported as broken three weeks earlier, temporarily barricaded, unbarricaded by students, and never repaired, while school staff walked past it daily. The former may support, at most, a negligence theory. The latter, particularly where there is documented knowledge and a failure to act, may be more likely to support an argument for willful and wanton conduct, depending on the circumstances.
Evidence in these cases may include:
- Maintenance work orders and repair logs for the specific equipment
- Incident reports involving prior injuries on the same equipment
- Communications between teachers, maintenance staff, or administrators about the condition of the equipment
- Any prior complaints by parents or staff that were documented and not addressed
If records show that a school was repeatedly made aware of a dangerous condition on playground equipment, or that safety measures were removed after children had been injured, that pattern may support an argument for willful and wanton conduct. A single incident, without additional evidence of notice or risk, may be less likely to meet the willful and wanton standard.
Scenario 3: Cafeteria Food Allergy Emergencies
Illinois law requires applicable schools to create and implement policies concerning anaphylaxis prevention and treatment, and section 22-30 governs the administration of undesignated epinephrine and related response protections.
The statute allows a school nurse or trained personnel to administer an undesignated epinephrine injector to a person whom they in good faith believe is having an anaphylactic reaction, even without a prior known diagnosis.
The Illinois State Board of Education has published model anaphylaxis response policies and requires that all public schools, charter schools, and nonsectarian nonpublic schools create and implement anaphylaxis policies and reevaluate them every three years. The ISBE model policy directs schools to maintain undesignated epinephrine, inspect it regularly, and replace expired medication. ISBE’s policy materials state that administrations of undesignated epinephrine must be reported to the agency within the timeframe set by the applicable policy. (Illinois State Board of Education, Anaphylaxis Response Policy for Illinois Schools, February 2022)
How the Standard of Liability Applies
In claims involving the administration of undesignated epinephrine under section 22-30, Illinois law provides immunity to the school and covered personnel except for willful and wanton conduct. Section 22-30 itself specifies that when school personnel administer an epinephrine injector in good faith in response to a suspected anaphylactic reaction, the school and its employees are protected from liability "except for willful and wanton conduct." (105 ILCS 5/22-30(c))
The question is not simply whether the child was harmed, but whether the school’s conduct could be characterized as willful and wanton under the governing legal standard; failure to follow a required policy may be relevant evidence, but it does not automatically establish liability. Examples of conduct that can give rise to a claim include:
- A school had a documented allergy plan and failed to follow it when the student presented with symptoms, which contributed to the harm.
- Staff had documented notice of a severe allergy and failed to take reasonable steps required by the student’s plan or school policy to reduce known risks.
- Failure to call 911 promptly during an anaphylactic episode, resulting in a delay in emergency care. (The Illinois model anaphylaxis policy specifically requires that emergency services be contacted "as soon as possible" using 911 in every case of epinephrine administration.)
- The school failed to maintain the required undesignated epinephrine or allowed the stock to expire without replacement, and that failure contributed to delayed treatment.
Alyssa's Law in Illinois: Where It Stands in 2026
Alyssa's Law is named in memory of Alyssa Alhadeff, a 14-year-old killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The legislation, first enacted in New Jersey in 2019, generally requires schools to implement mobile panic alert systems designed to enable rapid communication with emergency responders during critical incidents. As of this writing, the law has been enacted in New Jersey, Florida, New York, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon.
In Illinois, Alyssa’s Law has not been enacted as of this writing. Legislation has been proposed in recent sessions of the Illinois General Assembly, but its status may change. As of the time of publication, no version of Alyssa’s Law has been enacted in Illinois.
Parents should verify the status of this legislation directly through the Illinois General Assembly's website (ilga.gov) before drawing any conclusions about what requirements apply to their child's school.
Why This Matters Legally
The potential relevance of laws like Alyssa’s Law to school liability may arise in future cases, particularly where statutory safety requirements are not followed. Where a state has enacted the law, a school's failure to implement the required system, or failure to properly use it during an emergency, could be considered as part of a broader legal analysis, depending on the facts and applicable law.
In Illinois, where the law has not yet been enacted, existing legal frameworks apply, including statutory requirements for specific types of emergencies (such as anaphylaxis under Section 22-30) and a school’s own policies and procedures. A school's delay in calling 911 or failure to follow its own written emergency protocols may be an important factor in evaluating a potential willful and wanton claim.
If Alyssa's Law is ultimately signed into law in Illinois, the 2026-2027 implementation deadline would mean that schools failing to adopt the required system by that date, and then experiencing a covered emergency, could be evaluated in future cases when courts consider whether a school’s conduct met applicable legal standards. As with all legislative developments, families should work with an attorney to understand how any newly enacted law applies to the specific facts of a claim.
What This Means for Chicago Families
Illinois law does not expect public schools to prevent every possible accident. Illinois law generally requires schools to take reasonable steps in response to known risks and to follow applicable legal and policy-based obligations. Failure to respond in those circumstances may give rise to legal claims, depending on the facts.
If your child has suffered a serious injury at a Chicago-area school, the factual record developed in the days, weeks, and months following the incident is critical. That means preserving incident reports, requesting records of prior complaints or disciplinary actions, documenting the child's medical treatment, and consulting an attorney early.
Connect with MDR LAW LLC today at (312) 500-7944 or through our online contact form.
This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change, and the status of pending legislation should be verified through primary sources. Families with questions about a specific school injury claim should consult a licensed school injury attorney.