Corbett v. County of Lake, 2017 IL 121536

Kathy Corbett was injured August 21, 2013, when she rode over a defective portion of the Skokie Valley Bike Path in Highland Park and sustained serious injuries; she sued Lake County and the City of Highland Park for willful and wanton conduct.
County held a recreational lease with ComEd (right-of-way owner); City had a maintenance agreement obligating it to perform routine maintenance on the portion within Highland Park.
The path is a 10-mile, paved, asphalt, shared-use "rail-with-trail" with a painted centerline, mile markers, multiple road crossings, and overhead utilities; users include recreational bicyclists, pedestrians, and skaters.
City moved for summary judgment asserting absolute immunity under section 3-107(b) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act ("any hiking, riding, fishing or hunting trail"); the circuit court granted judgment for defendants; appellate court reversed as to City; Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court construed section 3-107(b), rejected the appellate court’s dictionary/"forest" test, and held the immunity provision applies only to primitive/rustic unimproved trails; the paved shared-use Skokie Valley Bike Path is not covered, so summary judgment for the City was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Skokie Valley Bike Path is a "trail" under 745 ILCS 10/3-107(b)	Corbett: path is paved, surrounded by development and road crossings, not a forested/primitive trail; thus no blanket immunity	City: path is commonly called a "trail" and surrounded by shrubs/green strips, so it falls within §3-107(b) and grants absolute immunity	Court: §3-107(b) covers primitive/rustic unimproved hiking/riding/fishing/hunting trails (natural surface); paved shared-use paths intended for ordinary bicycles/pedestrians are excluded — immunity inapplicable here
Whether City waived tort-immunity defense by maintenance agreement with County	Corbett: maintenance agreement amounts to waiver of immunity	City: no waiver; maintenance agreement does not eliminate statutory immunity	Court: did not decide waiver because §3-107(b) does not apply to the facts, so waiver issue unnecessary to resolve

Brown v. Cook County Forest Preserve, 284 Ill. App. 3d 1098 (discussed prior appellate approach defining “trail” by dictionary as a path through forest)
DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, 219 Ill. 2d 497 (explaining that immunity provisions without exceptions apply to willful and wanton conduct)
Moore v. Chicago Park District, 2012 IL 112788 (distinguishing recreational-land immunity under §3-106 from other immunity provisions)
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (canon that words in a list take related meanings; noscitur a sociis)
Goodwin v. Carbondale Park District, 268 Ill. App. 3d 489 (interpreting §3-107 as applying to unimproved, natural-condition property)