Section Newsletters

Articles on Tort Immunity Act

The “intended and permitted” pedestrian and §3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act By Michael Hartigan Tort Law, March 2015 The First District recently addressed the issue of whether a municipality owes a duty to a pedestrian forced to walk upon the street due to an unnatural accumulation of snow created by the municipality’s snow removal efforts.
Tort Immunity Act protects public employees operating emergency vehicles from negligence liability: A summary of the recent decision in Harris v. Thompson, 2012 IL 112525 By Kathryn Rolewick Bench and Bar, January 2014 A summary of the recent case of Harris v. Thompson.
Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge: Supreme Court to the rescue! By Stephen I. Lane Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2009 Since the Tort Immunity Act was passed in the mid-1960s, governmental agencies have, in many ways, enjoyed a collective lack of accountability for injuries caused by their agents and employees.
Tort Immunity Act is no protection against claim of retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation claim By Karen D. Fox Labor and Employment Law, June 2008 On April 17, 2008, in Smith v. Waukegan Park District, 2008 WL 1746664, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Tort Immunity Act did not protect a public entity against a claim by an employee of retaliatory discharge for pursuing his workers’ compensation benefits.
Murray v. Chicago Youth Center: Restricting the immunity of the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act By Russell W. Hartigan & Victoria R. Benson Local Government Law, August 2007 In July 2006, Justice McMorrow upheld the lower courts’ decisions to grant summary judgment to the Chicago Board of Education, Chicago Youth Center and its instructor under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (hereinafter “the Act”) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq.) in Ryan Murray, et al. v. Chicago Youth Center, et al., 2006 WL 1822656. At issue is whether the general grant of immunity allowed under the Act, such as that found in §§ 2-201 and 3-108(a), were subject to the exceptions found in § 3-109 of the Act. According to Justice McMorrow’s opinion, it does; however, the Illinois Supreme Court opined that the conduct at issue did not constitute willful and wanton conduct and, as a result, upheld the First District’s decision to uphold the District Court’s award of summary judgment to the Defendants.
Can a plaintiff climb out of the pothole issue? By Michael J. Marovich Civil Practice and Procedure, February 2005 Many personal injury cases involve situations in which a defendant claims that they lost control of their motor vehicle due to the fact that they struck a pothole in the street.
A request for refund of impact fees paid is not barred by the Tort Immunity Act By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, April 2004 Raintree filed an action against Long Grove, seeking a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the Village's ordinance requiring the payment of impact fees to obtain building permits. Its action also sought a refund of the fees paid by Raintree totaling more than $80,000.
Vested rights and tort immunity By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, April 2004 n 1981 the Village and O'Malley entered into an annexation agreement. In 1994 the parties extended the original annexation agreement to 2001 and O'Malley submitted a development concept plan to the Village

Select a Different Subject