Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2001 » Bonert v. Village of Schiller Park
Bonert v. Village of Schiller Park
State: Illinois
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-00-1529 Rel
Case Date: 05/15/2001

SECOND DIVISION
May 15, 2001






No. 1-00-1529


LEROY BONERT,

                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE VILLAGE OF SCHILLER PARK,
a Municipal Corporation,

                         Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.


No. 97 L 2357

Honorable
Irwin J. Solganick,
Judge Presiding.


JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff Leroy Bonert brought a negligence action againstdefendant Village of Schiller Park to recover damages for injurieshe sustained when he tripped over an indentation at theintersection of Grace Street and an alleyway in Schiller Park. Ondefendant's motion, the circuit court granted summary judgment inits favor and against plaintiff. Plaintiff contends on appeal thatsummary judgment was improper because he was an intended andpermitted user of the street under section 3-102(a) of the LocalGovernmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act)(745 ILCS 10/3-102 (West 1998)).

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant failed touse reasonable care to maintain the public "side way" and alley,and failed to warn plaintiff of the dangerous condition. Plaintiffalso alleged that defendant failed to repair the side way and thealley, and failed to erect barriers or warning signs to minimizethe hazardous condition. The second count alleged that defendant'sconduct was "willful and wanton."

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging thatit was immune from liability under section 3-102 of the Act (745ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 1998)) because plaintiff was not an"intended and permitted" user of the street. Defendant alsoalleged that plaintiff did not come within the exception whichclassifies those pedestrians in the immediate vicinity of theirlawfully parked vehicles as intended and permitted users of thestreet.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendantattached the transcript of plaintiff's deposition testimony. Plaintiff stated in his deposition that on March 11, 1996, at about6:50 a.m., he was walking from his apartment located on Irving ParkRoad, to his car parked on the west side of Grace Street. Plaintiff explained that his apartment borders an alley that runsin an east-west direction, while Grace Street runs in a north-southdirection and intersects Irving Park Road. Plaintiff's apartmentwas located east of Grace Street. Plaintiff stated that it was hishabit to walk through the alley and cross over to the west side ofGrace Street to get to his parked car. Plaintiff also explainedthat there are sidewalks on both sides of Grace Street and that thenearest crosswalk was at the intersection of Irving Park Road andGrace Street.

When plaintiff left his apartment that morning, he walkedthrough the alley toward his car, which was parked slightly northof the alley on the other side of Grace Street. Plaintiff statedthat as he approached Grace Street, he tripped on an "indentation"that was pooled with water in the area where the alley meets thestreet. According to plaintiff, the indentation was approximately3 feet wide and 8 to 10 feet long, and 1

Illinois Law

Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
    > Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies
    > Illinois DMV

Comments

Tips