Case law

Williams v. Miracle Center, Inc.

462 Ill. Dec. 369 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 24, 2022

The immunities established in the Tort Immunity Act are affirmative matters, and so local public entities bear the burden of proving their immunity. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 370. … Unlike section 2-105, section 3-110 clearly delineated the scope of the immunities afforded therein (specifically, immunity for injuries occurring on, in, or adjacent to a waterway) and to who they were afforded (specifically

Grant v. Board of Trustees of Valley View School District No. 365-U

286 Ill. App. 3d 642 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 14, 1997

Therefore, the defendants are not immunized from liability by the provisions of the Tort Immunity Act. … All of these allegations clearly related to the official conduct of the school program. Accordingly, O’Brien is inapposite and the trial court properly dismissed count II of Maria’s complaint.

Hatteberg v. Cundiff

2012 IL App (4th) 110417 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 25, 2012

Defendant Was Responding to an Emergency ¶ 15 Plaintiffs first argue that defendant does not qualify for immunity under the Tort Immunity Act because he was not “responding to an emergency” at the time of the … Id. at 562, 720 N.E.2d at 366. ¶ 17 Here, defendant was clearly responding to an emergency call he received from METCAD regarding an accident involving three vehicles.

Brooks v. City of Peoria

305 Ill. App. 3d 806 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 15, 1999

10/3—102(a) (West 1996)) (Tort Immunity Act). … It is well established that the Tort Immunity Act imposes a duty of care upon municipalities to maintain property only for uses that are both permitted and intended. Boub, 183 Ill. 2d 520 , 702 N.E.2d 535 ; Vaughn v.

Barnett v. Zion Park District

267 Ill. App. 3d 283 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 2, 1994

Here, the liability alleged by plaintiff is clearly based on the conduct of the lifeguards at the pool and not on any physical defect of the premises. … We conclude that section 3 — 108(b) clearly and unequivocally immunizes defendant where supervision is provided during pool hours.

Carroll v. Paddock

317 Ill. App. 3d 985 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 11, 2000

The Niehaus court held that the characteristics that make a not-for-profit corporation a charitable organization do not, without more, also qualify the corporation as a local public entity under the Act. … According to the Hospital, these detailed provisions clearly place its activities within the definition of public business. See 745 ILCS 10/6 — 101 through 6 — 110 (West 1998).

Stratman v. Brent

Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 6, 1997

The defendant's argument that he has a duty to the general public to reasonably insure that only qualified applicants become law enforcement officers is also not persuasive. … In the case at bar, the defendant's statements were clearly meant to be a comment on the plaintiff's ability to perform in future positions.

Kirschbaum v. Village of Homer Glen

365 Ill. App. 3d 486 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 11, 2006

The reviewing court must determine whether the allegations of plaintiffs complaint, when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. … CONCLUSION Because we find that section 3 — 102 of the Tort Immunity Act does not create a duty for defendants to clear brush from an intersection where there are clearly visible traffic control devices at each corner and

Martinelli v. The City of Chicago

989 N.E.2d 702 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 25, 2013

IMMUNITY ¶ 18 The City’s argument with respect to its immunity for failing to provide traffic control devices presents a question of law, which we will review de novo. Hess v. Flores, 408 Ill. … Despite statements to the contrary in its briefs before this court, the City very clearly attempted in cross-examination of water department employees, such as Dwyer, Kelly and Stewart, to establish that the

Bailey v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission

405 Ill. App. 3d 550 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 10, 2010

The court refused to find, as a matter of law, that the defendant’s establishment was a school as intended by section 24 — 24. … The church asserted that it was immune from liability under section 24 — 24 of the School Code, while the plaintiff argued that immunity under section 24 — 24 did not cover the operation of a day care facility operated by

Cooney v. Rossiter

976 N.E.2d 441 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 10, 2012

The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding the defendants immune, stating: “[I]t is well-established that court-appointed psychological evaluators are ‘protected by the same immunity … As the court stated in Defend: “The law thus clearly allows for an absolute privilege where there exists a significant interest in protecting the type of speech involved.”

Nelson v. Quarles and Brady, LLP

2013 IL App (1st) 123122 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 21, 2013

This result, plaintiff contends, would have made Curia a majority owner and was “clearly contrary to the terms of the option.” … In doing so, we cannot say that it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved which would entitle plaintiff to recover.

Cadena v. Chicago Fireworks Manufacturing Co.

297 Ill. App. 3d 945 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1998

Therefore, the City of Chicago Heights is immune from liability for failure to provide adequate police protection or service. 5 — 102 establishes immunity from liability from the Chicago Heights Fire Department or failure … , as such a reading to include those kinds of activities would tend to swallow the exception to the general rule of liability established by the Tort Immunity Act, and thereby render the entire provision effectively meaningless

U.S. Bank v. Lindsey

Appellate Court of Illinois · Dec 7, 2009

Atkinson testified that the Carmichael truck was subject to federal regulations that required Lindsey to be qualified and trained to possess a commercial driver’s license (CDL). … Next of Kin and Establishment of Parentage Carmichael contends that plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish that decedent was the biological father of the children who claimed to be beneficiaries of the

McLaughlin v. Tilendis

115 Ill. App. 2d 148 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 24, 1969

Molitor abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity from tort liability as applied to school districts. … Neither will we erode the defense of absolute privilege as it has heretofore been established in Illinois by finding that it does not have application to the factual situation before the court.

Doe v. Dimovski

336 Ill. App. 3d 292 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 15, 2003

We note, however, that plaintiffs complaint does set forth sufficient facts to establish negligence. … We find that count V of the complaint sets forth sufficient facts to establish a claim for negligence.

Sanders v. City of Chicago

306 Ill. App. 3d 356 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 30, 1999

Our holding is not meant to establish a rule that an officer necessarily must be engaged in an emergency response in order for section 2 — 202 immunity to apply. … App. 3d 241 (1989)) are immunized.

Fair v. City of Chicago

45 Ill. App. 3d 240 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 3, 1977

Pellum (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 86, 89 , 338 N.E.2d 876,877 , “is not whether the General Assembly has waived immunity, but whether it has statutorily granted such immunity.” … Stat. 1975, ch. 40, par. 21.1), are clearly inapplicable. The Juvenile Court Act applies only to legal fees for representing a minor in connection with hearings under that Act.

Pritza v. Village of Lansing

405 Ill. App. 3d 634 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 24, 2010

The Illinois Supreme Court firmly established that governmental self-insurance pools are not “insurance” as defined in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1 — 101 et seq. … The court agreed that, in the case of commercial insurance, “the immunity is waived since government funds are no longer in jeopardy and immunity would inure to the benefit of private investors who have assumed the risk of

Hickey v. Huber

263 Ill. App. 3d 560 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 16, 1994

Claiming sovereign immunity, Huber moved for summary judgment. … Huber’s and Morrison’s testimony clearly established that they were pursuing the green car. For these reasons, no jury determination on this issue is warranted. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed.