Village Owed No Duty of Care to Bicyclist Injured on Sidewalk
An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a Village in a
bike injury case in Johnson
v. Village of Palatine.
In June 2020, a cyclist was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk adjacent to a high-traffic street. While riding his bike, the cyclist struck an uneven section of the sidewalk, and fell and was injured. He sued the Village, claiming the Village owed him a duty of care to maintain or repair the sidewalk, which he claimed the Village negligently failed to do, leaving it dangerous and unsafe for use.
The Village asserted the following defenses against the lawsuit:
(1) under the Tort Immunity Act, the Village did not owe
the cyclist a duty of care because the sidewalk was intended only for
pedestrian use while bicyclists were only permitted users;
(2) the Village also did not owe the cyclist a duty of care
because the alleged defect in the sidewalk was an open and obvious condition; and
(3) the Village had immunity under the Tort Immunity Act
regarding its allocation of funding to its proactive sidewalk replacement
program.
The cyclist argued he was an intended user of the sidewalk because there were no bike lanes available on the high-traffic street, leaving him no other choice but to use the sidewalk. He also claimed he was an intended user because the Village had ordinances regulating bicycle use on sidewalks where it was allowed so long as there was no signage prohibiting that use, of which there was none on the high-traffic street. The cyclist also claimed that since he was a citizen of the Village, it was intended that he would use the sidewalk, so the Village owed him a duty of care.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Village and the Appellate Court upheld that ruling on appeal. The Appellate Court first determined there was no merit to the cyclist’s claim that he was an intended user of the sidewalk. The Court noted that the sidewalk was not signed for cyclist use, nor were there pavement markings or other indicators that the sidewalk was intended for bicycle use. Further, the Village’s own ordinances defined sidewalk as being intended for pedestrians, with no mention of cyclists. The Court rejected the cyclist’s argument that because he was forced to use the sidewalk because of the dangerous nature of the busy road, that meant he was an intended user.
The Appellate Court concluded that there was no merit to the Plaintiff’s contention that he was an intended user of the sidewalk and that his argument regarding his interpretation of the Tort Immunity Act contradicted all precedent. The Court did not address the Village’s “open and obvious” argument since it disposed of the case based on its finding that the cyclist was not an intended user of the sidewalk, and, as a result, the Village did not owe him a duty of care.
Post Authored by Madeline Tankersley & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment