Township Perspective “Ready for the Defense” Column 30 Years
Township Perspective magazine, “Ready for the Defense” Column. Jay Judge & Kathy James have written their monthly “Ready for the Defense” column in Township Perspective magazine for over 30 years and discussing recent defense cases favorable for defendants and Tort Immunity Act defenses available to “local public entities” in Illinois: Cities, Towns, Counties, Townships, School Districts, Park Districts, Housing Authorities, and such.
On the pages that follow are five representative samples of the “Ready for the Defense” column, as follows:
(1) “Slip and fall on ice plowed, but melted, snow,” discussing a recent Appellate Court case finding liability and discussing a contrary case for the defense and Illinois “Residential Snow Removal Act” holding residential owners who shovel snow cannot be liable except for willful and wanton conduct. Download PDF Document
(2) “No Liability for Slip and Fall on Rainwater Tracked In From Outside,” discussing the case of Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 394 Ill.App.3d 39, 914 N.E.2d 632 (1st Dist. 2009) (Laundromat owner not liable to customer who slipped and fell on rainwater tracked inside from outside by customers, as such rainwater is a natural accumulation of which there is no duty to remove or warn of). Download PDF Document
It is a well-reasoned and informative case for the defense.
(3) “§ 3-105 Weather Immunity For Injuries/Damages Caused by Rain, Snow, Ice & Wind,” discussing § 3-105, Weather Immunity, of the Tort Immunity Act and the case of Enriquez v. City of Chicago, 187 Ill.App.3d 110, 543 N.E.2d 905 (1st Dist. 1989) (City immune under § 3-105 for ice on bridge causing auto accident). Download PDF Document
(4) “The meaning of ‘willful & wanton conduct’ under the Tort Immunity Act,” discussing the definition of “willful and wanton conduct” in § 1-210 of the Tort Immunity Act and its requirement that a “local public entity” be liable only if its conduct was “willful and wanton conduct” – showing “utter indifference to” or “conscious disregard for” the safety of the plaintiff. Download PDF Document
(5) “No Liability For Removing Ice and Snow and Leaving a Thin Glaze of Ice” and discussing the no liability for “thin glaze of ice” after shoveling snow case of Bakeman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 16 Ill.App.3d 1065, 307 N.E.2d 449 (2nd Dist. 1974), and no duty to spread rock salt, cinders or sand on icy walks. Download PDF Document