Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s automated speed enforcement systems in which they alleged that the speed cameras placed by the city were not within the requisite distance from a facility, area, or land owned by a park district as is required by section 11-208.8 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant and plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the parties disputed the meaning of the term “park district” and what it means for a park district to “own” property. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the city is not a “park district” under the speed camera statute, but that the Chicago Park District “owned” at least portions of the parks in question and that genuine issues of material fact existed with regard to the timing of the park district’s ownership of the property, the location of resulting safety zones, and whether the city’s cameras were within those zones. (FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring and PUCINSKI, concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Illinois Vehicle Code