A recent court decision has affirmed that a local village does not owe a duty of care to a bicyclist injured on its sidewalk. The complaint, filed by Martin Johnson in the Circuit Court of Cook County on June 11, 2020, was against the Village of Palatine.
Johnson's lawsuit arose from an incident where he was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk along Quentin Road in Palatine and struck an uneven section, resulting in serious injuries. He claimed that the Village had negligently failed to maintain or repair the sidewalk, making it dangerous for use. Johnson argued that he was an intended user of the sidewalk since there were no signs prohibiting bicyclists and no designated bicycle lanes on the busy street.
The Village countered by asserting that under section 3-102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act), Johnson was not an intended user of the sidewalk but merely a permitted one. They argued that their ordinances allowed bicycles on sidewalks unless explicitly prohibited but did not indicate that sidewalks were intended for bicycle use. Furthermore, they pointed out that their dedicated bike path system demonstrated their intent for bicyclists to use those paths instead.
During discovery, evidence included depositions from five Village employees who consistently testified that while bicyclists were permitted to use sidewalks, pedestrians were the intended users. Additionally, photographs showed no signs or markings indicating that the sidewalk was meant for bicycles. The Village also argued that any defects in the sidewalk were open and obvious and should have been noticed by Johnson.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Village, concluding that Johnson had not proven he was an intended user of the sidewalk. The court found no affirmative manifestations like signs or pavement markings indicating such intent from the Village. Moreover, testimonies from Village officials reinforced this interpretation.
Johnson's motion for reconsideration reiterated his stance but was denied by the court as it presented arguments already considered. On appeal, Johnson maintained his position but again faced opposition from the Village, which highlighted legal precedents distinguishing between permitted and intended users.
Ultimately, both courts concluded that while Johnson was permitted to ride on the sidewalk due to lack of prohibition signs, he was not an intended user according to municipal intent and ordinances. This distinction absolved the Village from owing him a duty under section 3-102(a) of the Act.
The case details are as follows: presiding Justice Oden Johnson delivered the judgment with Justices Hyman and C.A. Walker concurring; Judge Nichole C. Patton presided over the initial ruling; Case ID No. 21L 2314.