Potholes-225x300

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

IMG_6741-225x300IMG_E6763-215x300
The personal injury  lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have handled many dog bite injury cases and they almost always involve the Illinois Animal Control Act.  A recent appellate decision in Scifo v. Haeger, 2025 IL App (2d) 240531, offers important clarification on the liability of dog owners under the Illinois Animal Control Act regarding the definition of “owner” under the act.

In Scifo, the plaintiff sued on behalf of her two-year-old son, M.S., who suffered a serious facial injury after being bitten by a German Shepherd named Walker in a public park. The dog had been brought to the park by Gary Haeger, who invited the toddler to pet the dog. Tragically, the dog responded by biting the child.

The lawsuit named both Gary and his wife, Sandra Haeger, as defendants, alleging that they were co-owners of the dog. Sandra, however, filed a motion to dismiss the claim against her, arguing that she could not be liable because she was not present at the park and had no control over the dog at the time of the attack.

IMG_0007-225x300IMG_7996-225x300
Electric bicycles are booming in popularity, but their presence in Chicago’s bike lanes raises serious safety concerns. The bike injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have noted first had the increase of bike related injury victims that call our office.

 E‑bikes can reach speeds up to 28 mph, significantly faster than most pedal bikes. Studies show:

  • E‑bike riders suffer more severe injuries, including fractures, internal trauma, and concussions.

IMG_6409-300x225
A personal injury victim comes to our office.  He was crossing the road in a crosswalk when a driver failed to stop and plows into him. He has a fractured hip with surgery and has over $100,000 in medical bills alone. It sounds like a strong case. Expect there is one major problem. The driver only has $25,000.00 in liability coverage; the minimum coverage allowed in the state of Illinois. The victim does not drive a car so does not have under-insured motorist insurance coverage.  Unfortunately, this is a scenario that the personal injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. encounter quite often.  Perhaps it is time that the mandatory minimums are raised to keep up with inflation.

Illinois’ current minimum liability coverage requires drivers to carry only $25,000 per person for bodily injury and $50,000 per accident. These limits were last adjusted in 2015, when they rose from $20,000, a figure that had been in place since 1990.

That means in over 30 years, the state has increased coverage by only $5,000—just a 25% increase. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has soared by over 169%, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. In other words, a $20,000 policy in 1990 would need to be over $53,000 today just to keep up with general inflation. And that doesn’t even account for skyrocketing medical costs.

IMG_0009-225x300IMG_6319-225x300
As anyone living in Chicago has noticed, the number of e-scooters on Chicago streets has grown drastically over the last few years.  According to Chicago data, more than 3.7 million trips have been logged on rental scooters between 2022 and 2023 and this number is certainly growing.  With this rapid growth have there been a corresponding increase of e-scooter injuries? The answer is unclear. Unlike some cities that maintain detailed injury reports, Chicago currently lacks centralized data tracking for scooter-related accidents. The Chicago Department of Transportation has confirmed it does not track the number of riders injured in e-scooter crashes, and scooter vendors like Bird and Lime don’t publish specific local statistics either (chicago.suntimes.com).

Although the 2020 CDPH pilot collected limited emergency department data, it remains partial at best—capturing only certain ED visits and lacking proper labeling of scooter injures. (chicago.gov).

The e-scooter injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have certainly noted a sharp increase of injured scooter riders contacting our office for legal representation.

IMG_9775-225x300IMG_3465-225x300
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.

IMG_6074-225x300

If you have been injured in a trucking crash in Chicago or anywhere in Illinois, it is important to understand all the factors that may have contributed to the accident—including whether the driver was qualified to operate a commercial vehicle under federal law. At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., a leading Chicago personal injury law firm, we represent victims of serious truck crashes and fight to hold trucking companies accountable when they put unsafe or unqualified drivers on the road.

A recent federal Executive Order, issued on April 28, 2025, now requires strict enforcement of a rule that has existed for years: truck drivers must be able to speak and read English. The Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will begin placing drivers out of service if they cannot demonstrate English proficiency.

Under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), commercial motor vehicle drivers must be able to:

  • Read and understand road signs and warning labels

  • Converse with police and emergency personnel

  • Follow detour instructions and directions from dispatchers

  • Complete safety records and logbooks in English

The purpose of this regulation is to protect public safety, but the impact may be far-reaching. Many owner-operators and immigrant truck drivers are simply trying to earn a living and support their families. For drivers who struggle with English fluency, this new enforcement policy may result in loss of work or fines, even if they have driven safely for years.

At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., we believe in road safety and fairness. We also believe drivers deserve support—not just penalties. Trucking schools and community colleges should offer specialized English programs for truck drivers, focusing on the real-world vocabulary and situations they face on the road. By giving drivers the tools they need to comply, we can reduce the risk of accidents without marginalizing workers. Continue reading

Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. is a highly respected Chicago law firm with deep experience in both personal injury and immigration law. Our attorneys regularly represent victims injured in trucking accidents, and we also assist individuals navigating the complex immigration system, including commercial drivers working under valid immigration status.   We follow closely all trucking regulations.

On April 28, 2025, the White House issued a new Executive Order requiring strict enforcement of English proficiency requirements for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. This move, combined with action from the Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), represents a major shift in federal trucking regulation—one that directly affects the safety of Illinois highways and the liability of commercial carriers.

Under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), commercial drivers must be able to read and speak English well enough to converse with the public, understand highway signs and signals, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on required reports. Despite this longstanding rule, enforcement had been largely suspended since 2016. That has now changed, and we anticipate more drivers will be ordered out of service.

The Department of Transportation has rescinded the prior guidance that prohibited placing drivers out-of-service for violating the English proficiency standard. Moving forward, drivers who cannot meet the English language requirement will be deemed unqualified to operate a CMV and subject to out-of-service orders.

Trucking companies and drivers must now take proactive steps to ensure compliance with federal English proficiency standards to avoid regulatory violations, liability exposure, and out-of-service orders. Carriers should revise their hiring and training protocols to include clear assessments of a driver’s ability to read and speak English as required under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2). This may include conducting internal language evaluations, requiring proof of English coursework or certification, and offering employer-sponsored English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. Drivers who struggle with language fluency should be encouraged to enroll in ESL classes, many of which are available through community colleges, adult education centers, or online platforms tailored to commercial driving vocabulary and real-world communication. Addressing language deficiencies not only ensures legal compliance but also promotes safer roads for all motorists. Continue reading

IMG_9334-225x300IMG_9335-225x300
Written and Reviewed by Peter Zneimer, Zneimer & Zneimer P.C.

Chicago has built over 200 miles of on-street, protected, buffered, and shared bike lanes over the last few years.  Chicago has also engaged in initiatives like the Divvy bike-sharing system, which recorded over 11 million bike and scooter trips in 2024.  The expansion of bike lanes in Chicago has sparked heated debates among residents, city planners, and and local businesses . The bike injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. note that protected bike lanes is the best way to keep bicyclists safe from motor vehicles. While biking advocates highlight the benefits of dedicated cycling infrastructure, some neighborhood groups express concerns about the implications for parking, traffic congestion, and seasonal usability.​

 Bike Lane Advantages

At the Chicago bicycle attorneys Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., our attorneys have long championed the rights of bicyclists across Illinois. As avid advocates for BIcycle-225x300safer 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

Contact Information