Appellate Court Holds City did not Owe a Duty of Care to an Injured Motorcyclist
In Calhoun v. City of Evanston, a motorcyclist sued the City after crashing his motorcycle on the base of a crosswalk sign. The sign had become detached from the base, leaving only a small, elevated platform. The motorcyclist struck this platform and suffered a broken leg and injured wrist.
The motorcyclist filed a negligence complaint against the
City claiming the City did not properly remove or warn people of the
hazard. The trial court held that 1) the City did not owe the motorcyclist a
duty, 2) the base of the crosswalk sign was not hazardous, 3) the base of the
crosswalk sign was an open and obvious danger, and 4) the City was immune under
the Tort Immunity Act.
The Appellate Court also ruled in favor of the City, finding that the City did not
owe the motorcyclist a duty because it did not have notice of the hazard. The
motorcyclist had claimed that the City had notice because one of the responding
officers allegedly agreed that the crosswalk base was a hazard, and the City should have
fixed it. The Appellate Court considered this but ultimately held that the
police officer’s statement did prove the City had actual notice of the hazard
because there were no records of the hazard in the City’s files.
In the alternative, the motorcyclist alleged that the City
should have known of the hazard because it was plainly visible. While the
Appellate Court agreed that the hazard was visible, the crosswalk base was less
than 2 inches tall and only posed a small threat of harm.
Because the motorcyclist could not establish that the City had notice of the alleged hazardous condition, and the condition did not pose a substantial risk of harm, the City was not liable for the injury.
Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment