At the Chicago bicycle attorneys Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., our attorneys have long championed the rights of bicyclists across Illinois. As avid advocates for
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 failure to provide traffic control devices. The trial court agreed that the design allegations were merely a reformulation of a failure to warn claim. The Appellate Court affirmed. Even though the plaintiff removed explicit references to the absence of signage from her amended complaint, the court found that the gravamen of her theory remained the same. She was alleging that, had a stop sign or signal been present, the crash might have been avoided. Under 3-104, that kind of failure to put initial signs – even if it led to death – was immune. The estate was similarly left to bear its own costs for the bills and losses.
One would expect that a pattern of prior incidents, such as the earlier crash mentioned in Mankame, might create a duty to act. But the law distinguishes between unsafe uses and unsafe conditions. The court emphasized that merely gathering speed on a slope, even toward an uncontrolled intersection, was a matter of how the trail was used—not necessarily a defect in the trail itself. Unless the slope or sightline was inherently dangerous in a way that prevented ordinary users from traveling safely, the municipality remained shielded from personal injury damages.
What binds Johnson and Mankame together is not simply the tragic outcome for each cyclist but the structure of immunity and duty woven into Illinois law. Perhaps most striking is that neither Johnson nor Mankame was engaged in reckless behavior. Johnson was riding in daylight on a commonly used sidewalk. Mankame was following the designed bike trail. Neither plaintiff alleged anything beyond ordinary negligence—and both were met with immunity doctrines that foreclosed their claims.
For advocates of safer infrastructure, these cases offer a sobering lesson. Infrastructure may invite use, but unless the law clearly defines cyclists as “intended users” by signage that it is intended for bicycles, or imposes a heightened duty to remedy known hazards, legal recourse will remain elusive. Municipal immunity, once invoked, reshapes even tragic and preventable injuries into matters beyond redress.
Bicyclists must remain aware not only of physical hazards on the road but of legal blind spots in the doctrine of tort liability. Until the law evolves to catch up with how people actually use public ways, plaintiffs like Johnson and the Mankame family may continue to find themselves pedaling into courts that say, in effect, you were never meant to be there.
At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., we receive many calls about devastating a bicycle injuries in Chicago, the Chicago Suburbs, and Illinois towns and cities. Our office has developed expertise in bicycle cases and has argued before the Appellate Court against use of immunity to prevent bicyclists from receiving compensation. Our attorneys know how to investigate these complex cases, challenge immunity defenses when possible, and advocate for cyclists’ rights both in court and in public policy. If you or someone you love has been injured while cycling, contact our experienced team today for a free consultation. Contact us as are here to help you navigate the legal road ahead.