Illinois Supreme Court Reverses Narrow Tort Immunity Exception for Bicyclists Previously Given by First District

In a significant ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court has reversed a narrow exception to the Tort Immunity Act for bicyclists, previously established by the First District in the case of Alave v. City of Chicago. This decision underscores the importance of “affirmative physical manifestations” on public property when determining a municipality’s intent regarding roadway use. The Court clarified that while cyclists may be permitted users, the absence of clear indicators, such as bike lanes, means that municipalities are not obligated to maintain crosswalks for them. Discover the implications of this ruling for cyclists and municipalities alike.

Local Governments and Cyclists Take Note: First District Limits Recent Exception to Tort Immunity Act

In a key ruling, the First District Appellate Court created a limited exception to the Tort Immunity Act for cyclists near Divvy stations in Chicago. However, this was restricted in Babic v. The Village of Lincolnwood, raising questions about a municipality’s duty of care to cyclists. This decision highlights the need for local governments to clarify their stance on bicycle use on public streets. Discover how these rulings impact cyclists and municipalities.

First District Creates Narrow Exception to Tort Immunity Act

A recent ruling by Illinois’ First District Appellate Court has created a narrow exception to the Tort Immunity Act, raising intriguing questions about municipal liability. In a case involving a cyclist who fell in a crosswalk near a Divvy bike rental station, the court determined that the presence of the bike station indicated an intention for cyclists to use the adjacent roadway. This landmark decision challenges traditional interpretations of duty owed by municipalities and could signal a shift in how similar cases are approached. Discover the implications of this ruling and what it means for cyclists and city responsibilities.

An Illinois Supreme Court Reminder of What Constitutes Willful and Wanton Conduct under Tort Immunity Act: Barr v. Cunningham, 2017 IL 120751

The Illinois Tort Immunity Act shields local public entities from liability unless a plaintiff can establish willful and wanton conduct—defined as deliberate intent to cause harm or an utter indifference or conscious disregard for safety. In Barr v. Cunningham, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified that this standard is not automatically a jury question and cannot be met by speculation alone. Absent evidence of prior injuries or proof that an activity is generally associated with serious harm, a plaintiff cannot show the requisite “knowledge of impending danger,” and trial courts may properly dispose of such claims as a matter of law.