Cohen v. Chicago Park District
2016 IL App (1st) 152889
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Isaac Cohen fell from his bicycle on the Lakefront Trail after his wheel caught in a large crack; the defect was repaired on July 10, 2013.
- Cohen sued the Chicago Park District alleging willful and wanton failure to repair or warn; the Park District asserted immunity under the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10), mainly §3-107(a) and alternatively §3-106.
- The Park District’s evidence: the Lakefront Trail is an ~18-mile multiuse paved trail used by thousands daily, surrounded by developed recreational facilities, inspected annually, and repaired mostly via an expedited “rapid response” contractor process.
- After receiving a patron complaint in spring 2013, the Park District classified the crack as an emergency but repaired it through the rapid-response contracting process, with notice to proceed given June 19 and repair completed July 10; no barricades or markings were placed while awaiting repair.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Park District, holding §3-107(a) (absolute immunity for roads providing access to fishing, hunting, or primitive camping, recreational, or scenic areas) applied and, alternatively, that the Park District’s conduct was not willful and wanton under §3-106.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded, holding §3-107(a) does not cover the Lakefront Trail and that whether the Park District acted willfully and wantonly is a triable fact.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3-107(a) absolute immunity applies to the Lakefront Trail | §3-107(a) covers only access to primitive/undeveloped recreational or scenic areas; Lakefront Trail is developed and non-primitive | §3-107(a) covers roads providing access to recreational or scenic areas generally; Scott controls | §3-107(a) is ambiguous; read in pari materia with §3-107(b) and §3-106, it applies only to access roads to primitive/undeveloped areas — does not apply to Lakefront Trail |
| Whether the Trail is an “access road” or falls under §3-106 (recreational property immunity for negligence only) | The Trail is itself recreational property governed by §3-106, not an access road under §3-107(a) | Trail is an access road providing access to recreational/scenic areas and thus covered by §3-107(a) | Trail is not within §3-107(a); therefore §3-106 governs (no absolute immunity) |
| Whether Park District’s post-notice conduct was willful and wanton | Delay in repair despite classifying defect as emergency plus failure to warn/barricade creates a genuine issue of willful and wanton conduct | Park District acted promptly by inspecting and commencing repair process; rehabilitative acts negate willful and wanton claim | Whether conduct was willful and wanton is a question of fact for a jury; summary judgment improper |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Summary judgment was premature because material factual disputes exist about notice, emergency classification, delay, and failure to warn | Summary judgment appropriate because Park District took remedial steps and was entitled to immunity | Summary judgment reversed; trial court erred in deciding willful-and-wanton issue as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Rockford Park District, 263 Ill. App. 3d 853 (1994) (applied §3-107(a) to an access structure; Court of Appeals previously read statute broadly)
- Goodwin v. Carbondale Park District, 268 Ill. App. 3d 489 (1994) (interpreted §3-107(b) to cover unimproved/undeveloped trails and explained legislative purpose for limiting absolute immunity)
- Brown v. Cook County Forest Preserve, 284 Ill. App. 3d 1098 (1996) (held paved bike paths traversing developed land are not §3-107(b) riding trails)
- McElroy v. Forest Preserve District, 384 Ill. App. 3d 662 (2008) (found bridge in forest preserve part of §3-107(b) trail and disagreed with Goodwin’s unimproved-property emphasis)