City Not Liable for Bicyclist’s Injuries
A bicyclist suffered injuries when he struck a large pothole
in an alley. The bicyclist sued the City for negligence. The City then filed a
motion to dismiss, contending that Section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act
provided the City immunity as the bicyclist was not an intended user of the
alley. The bicyclist argued that he was an intended user of the alley by
presenting a bicycle map and arguing that his bicycle qualified as a “vehicle”
under the municipal code.
The circuit court ruled in favor of the City, finding that
Section 3-102(a) granted the City immunity. The trial court reasoned that the
bicycle did not qualify as a vehicle, and as such, the bicyclist was not an
intended user of the alleyway.
On appeal, the bicyclist argued that the circuit court erred
in dismissing his complaint. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s
dismissal, finding that the alley was not intended for bicycle use. The court
noted that the Illinois Supreme Court has advised that Section 3-102(a) “only
imposes a duty of ordinary care on municipalities to maintain property for uses
that are both permitted and intended.” The appellate court noted that nothing
in the alley suggested that it was intended for bicycle use. Ultimately, the
court determined that while bicyclists were permitted to use the alley,
they were not the intended users. Baez
v. City of Evanston, 2013 IL App (1st)
123763 (Sept. 27, 2013).
Post Authored by Erin Baker, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment