# Gapinske v. Town of Condit

> Appellate Court of Illinois · September 16, 1993 · 250 Ill. App. 3d 1045

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742662

## Case

- **Full name:** GARY GAPINSKE Et Al., Indiv. and as Special Adm'rs of the Estate of Adam Paul Gapinske, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE TOWN OF CONDIT Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** September 16, 1993
- **Citations:** 250 Ill. App. 3d 1045; 189 Ill. Dec. 334; 619 N.E.2d 1383
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cook
- **Judges:** Steigmann, Cook, Lund
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742662

## Opinion text

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring:
I am not certain the use of the word “initially” in section 3 — 104 of the Act was a legislative oversight. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 85, par. 3 — 104.) The word may be used to distinguish between the failure to initially provide a sign, for which there is immunity, and the failure to replace a damaged or stolen sign, for which there may be liability under the town’s duty to maintain its property. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 85, par. 3-102(a); West, 147 Ill. 2d at 13-14, 588 N.E.2d at 1110.) The argument that once the town initially provided a sign of some sort the immunity was waived was rejected in West. “The creative plaintiff, seeking to premise an action on the failure to provide a particular traffic device, could always circumvent section 3 — 104 by finding and pointing out some other traffic device that was provided.” (Emphasis in original.) West, 147 Ill. 2d at 10, 588 N.E.2d at 1108.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742662. Public record. Not legal advice.