decision (which involved a child injured while horseback riding) , the Illinois legislature enacted the Equine Activity Liability Act which states:

Each participant, or parent or guardian of a minor participant may execute a release assuming responsibility for the risks of engaging in equine activities. The release shall give notice to the participant, or parent or guardian, of the risks of engaging in equine activities, including (i) the propensity of an equine to behave in dangerous ways that may result in injury to the participant, (ii) the inability to predict an equine's reaction to sound, movements, objects, persons, or animal, and (iii) the hazards of surface or subsurface conditions. A release shall remain valid until expressly revoked by the participant or for minor the parent or guardian. 745 JLCS 47/1 et seq. (1996).

This legislative enactment may be subject to multiple assertions. Arguably, the legislature was specifically responding to the Meyer decision and purposely chose to limit the execution of a release by a parent to equine activities. Conversely, it may be asserted that the legislature implicitly recognized that such releases are not against public policy (provided the language of the agreement is specific as to the risks).

Additionally, in White v. Village of Homewood, the Illinois Appellate Court, first district, held that a waiver releasing the municipality from liability on account of injuries sustained during a "pre-employment" physical agility test to become a fire fighter/paramedic was unenforceable as against public policy." 628 N.E.2d 616 (1993). However, in Radloff v. Village of West Dundee, the Illinois Appellate Court, second district, upheld the validity of a waiver releasing the municipality from liability on account of injuries sustained during a physical aptitude test to become a police officer, and specifically held the release not to be against public policy. 489 N.E.2d 356 (1986). Insofar as the Illinois Supreme Court has yet to address the enforceability of waivers associated with pre-employment testing, the validity of such agreements remain at issue and subject to conflicting decisions.

Impact of the 1986 Amendments to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act
At the time of the 1986 amendments to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act ("Act"), local public entities were faced with a profound liability and insurance crisis. Tax dollars and public monies were being used to pay damage claims or to fund exorbitant insurance premiums because of the increased number of injury claims that were being brought against park districts and municipalities. The General Assembly determined that it was in the public interest to provide relief to governmental entities in the form of tort reform. Among the tort reforms were several amendments to the Act that broadened the types and scope of activities and conduct contemplated by the legislature and available to public park and recreation entities and employees. Among the most significant changes were those made to section 3-106 (immunity for recreational property), broadening the types of recreational property aŁ forded immunity. The original statutory language included "property permitted to be used as a park, playground or open area." The amendment covered property 'including but not limited to parks, playgrounds, open areas, buildings or other recreational facilities." As amended, this provision has been interpreted to grant immunity for everything from a defective washroom sink to a drainage ditch in which no recreational activity per se was permitted. Most recently, the Illinois Supreme Court applied this immunity to park district walkways and parking lots.

The immunities under the Act generally provide a greater avenue of liability protection. For instance, although "willful and wanton" conduct is a common law exception to waivers and a statuette exception to section 3-106 of the Act; the statutory "willful and wanton" standard is fir greater than the common law standard. Under the common law, willful and wanton conduct may be only degrees more than ordinary negligence, in which the Act defines such conduct as: a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others or their property."

Similarly, recent case law has upheld the absolute immunity of other sections of the Act, including sections 3-108 (immunity for supervision of public property) and 2-201 (discretionary immunity). These immunities provide greater liability protection than waivers (i.e., no exception for "willful and wanton" conduct).

Accordingly, it must be acknowledged and appreciated that in a variety of contexts and situations, current statutory immunities provide broader liability protection than waivers. However, the immunities under the Act are not all-inclusive. There remains myriad circumstances in which statutory tort immunity is unavailable and where waivers serve as the primary avenue of liability protection.

For example, the Act generally does not provide statutory immunity for the following:

- Non-emergency vehicle accidents / transportation services;

- Supervision of programs/activities not held on public property;

- Situations in which a participant is injured by a staff member during athletic competition (e.g., staff member abandons role as supervisor to participate in a basketball game);