Chicago Accident Lawyer Blog

Dangerous potholes in Chicago

Cycling in Chicago and throughout Illinois has become more than a trend. For many, it is a lifestyle and represents a means of commuting, staying active, and enjoying the city. But it also comes with risks. With the exception of car accidents, one of the most common and often most dangerous hazards facing cyclists in this city is the pothole. These street craters can buckle rims, send riders over handlebars, and result in serious personal injuries. Understandably, when this happens, the next question is whether the City of Chicago or any other Illinois city or municipality can be held responsible.

The answer is rarely simple. The City, like most municipalities in Illinois, benefits from broad legal immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. This law protects cities and their employees from liability in many situations. And in practice, it means that injured bicyclists often face an uphill battle when seeking compensation for injuries caused by potholes.

The governmental immunity is not absolute. It depends on the location of the accident, the nature of the hazard, what the City knew or should have known, and whether the injured person was using the street or path in a way the law considers “intended.”

A recent case from the Illinois Supreme Court illustrates the limits of municipal liability. In Alave v. City of Chicago, the plaintiff was injured while riding his bicycle through a crosswalk. Although the area included Divvy bike stations and signage encouraging cycling, the court held that the cyclist was not an “intended user” of that crosswalk. The court emphasized that the presence of bikes nearby was not enough as the critical factor was that the crosswalk itself had not been designated for bicycle travel. The case was dismissed, reinforcing a hard truth – unless a path, lane, or street is specifically marked or designed for bicycles (in other words “intended” for bicyclists), the City may not owe a duty of care to cyclists injured there.

The decision in Alave followed the same logic as an earlier appellate decision in Berz v. City of Evanston, where the plaintiff was injured while biking through an alley. The court held that the alley was not intended for bicyclists, and therefore, the City could not be held liable for the defect that caused the injury. These cases make clear that even in bike-friendly neighborhoods, cyclists are not always protected if they are riding in areas not explicitly meant for bike use.

So what does it mean to be an “intended user”? Under Illinois law, a city has a duty to keep its property reasonably safe for those whom it intends to use it. If the city provides a designated bike lane, then a cyclist in that lane is an intended user. But if the cyclist is riding on a sidewalk, an alley, or a Continue reading

The Chicago bike injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have handled a number of cases where bicyclists or scooter riders were injured after hitting a defect on the bike path or road way.  A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision, Alave v. City of Chicago, highlights a harsh legal reality: even when the City encourages bicycling, it may not be legally responsible for unsafe streets unless the road is officially designated for bike use.

In Alave, the plaintiff, Clark Alave, was seriously injured while riding his own bicycle at night near the intersection of West Leland Avenue and North Western Avenue. As he crossed the street near a Divvy station, his front wheel dropped into a deep pothole hidden in the crosswalk. The fall knocked out teeth, caused facial scarring, and left him with hip and shoulder injuries. He sued the City of Chicago for negligence, alleging that the City knew or should have known about the hazardous road condition.

Alave’s attorneys pointed to the Divvy station located just 100 feet from the crash site, as well as City ordinances that restrict sidewalk riding for adults and treat bicyclists like vehicle drivers on the road. They argued that the City intended for cyclists to ride in that area and therefore had a duty to maintain the street in a safe condition.

At the Chicago bicycle attorneys Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., our attorneys have long championed the rights of bicyclists across Illinois. As avid advocates for safer streets and comprehensive accountability, we have represented cyclists injured due to roadway defects, negligent drivers, and flawed infrastructure. With the rise in bike commuting and recreational riding, our legal team stays on the cutting edge of developments affecting bicycle law. Recent Illinois appellate decisions draw attention to the legal limitations placed on injured cyclists seeking justice.

For Illinois bicyclists, the sight of a paved path or quiet sidewalk might offer the promise of a safer ride. But two recent appellate decisions—Johnson v. Village of Palatine and Mankame v. Bloomingdale Township—reveal the precarious legal terrain that cyclists must navigate when the infrastructure fails them. Each case involves a serious personal injury to a bicyclist caused by defects or dangerous designs in public ways. Yet in both, the courts found that the municipalities could not be held liable, despite what might seem to a layperson like negligence. These decisions show how immunity doctrines and legal definitions can quietly shift the burden of injury, the cost of medical expenses, from the state to the cyclist.

In Johnson, the plaintiff was riding his bike along a sidewalk adjacent to Quentin Road in Palatine. It was a sunny June morning in 2020. As he approached an uneven slab of sidewalk, Johnson’s tire caught on a raised portion. He lost control and flew over the handlebars, landing in a bush and suffering serious injuries. He sued the Village, alleging negligent maintenance of the sidewalk. But the Village asserted it owed him no duty. Why? Because he was not an “intended user” of the sidewalk.

This seemingly arcane distinction became dispositive. Under section 3-102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a)), municipalities owe a duty of care only to those who are both permitted and intended users of public property. The Village conceded Johnson was permitted to ride on the sidewalk—its own ordinances allowed bicycles unless expressly prohibited. But permission was not enough. The Village argued that its infrastructure, policies, and even the physical dimensions of the sidewalk showed it was built for pedestrians, not cyclists. And the court agreed. Despite the absence of any signs telling Johnson not to ride there, he was held to be outside the scope of the Village’s legal duty. Summary judgment was affirmed in the Village’s favor and Johnson was left to bear his own cost for injuries, bills, and suffering.

Contrast this with Mankame, a tragic case arising from the death of Ramdas Mankame in September 2020. He was riding on the North Central DuPage Regional Trail, a 19-mile multi-jurisdictional path connecting forest preserves and suburban roads. His route that day took him from a boardwalk segment over a wetland onto an “on-road” portion of the trail along Lawrence Avenue. As he descended a slope toward an intersection with Garden Avenue, a car traveling north struck him. He died from his injuries.

The executor of his estate sued Bloomingdale Township and the Village of Bloomingdale, alleging negligent and willful conduct in trail design and maintenance. She claimed the transition from off-street trail to on-road segment, the downhill grade, and the absence of traffic control created a foreseeable and previously reported hazard. Another bicyclist had reportedly been hit at the same location earlier that year.

But the court dismissed the case. The key defense rested on section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act, which provides absolute immunity for a public entity’s Continue reading