Monson v. City of Danville
2017 IL App (4th) 160593
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 7, 2012, Barbara Monson tripped on an uneven seam between two downtown sidewalk slabs in Danville and suffered injuries (lacerated chin, dental damage, bruising).
- Monson sued the City of Danville (Dec. 2013), alleging negligence and willful/wanton conduct for failing to repair the uneven sidewalk.
- City officials Shelly Larson (downtown superintendent) and James Ahrens (public works director) testified: Larson identified possible defects and marked them; Ahrens inspected, applied multiple factors, and exercised discretion whether and when to repair as part of a 2011–2012 downtown sidewalk enhancement project.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing discretionary-immunity under 745 ILCS 10/2-109 and 2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act).
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding Ahrens’ actions were discretionary policy decisions and therefore immune; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 3-102 (duty to maintain sidewalks) overrides discretionary immunity | Monson: section 3-102 exceptions to immunity control and preclude summary judgment because City had notice of the defect | City: Ahrens’ decisions about which slabs to repair were discretionary policy determinations covered by sections 2-109/2-201 | Held: Sections 2-109/2-201 apply; acts were discretionary policy decisions, so City immune |
| Whether City had actual or constructive notice making section 3-102 applicable | Monson: City had notice (inspection and photos) so duty under 3-102 applies | City: Even with notice, Ahrens’ inspection and choice to do nothing was a discretionary decision covered by immunity | Held: Court did not need to decide notice; even if notice existed, immunity under 2-109 protects the City when a discretionary decision was made |
| Whether Ahrens’ conduct was ministerial (no discretion) or discretionary (policy) | Monson: process of marking and failing to fix was ministerial, so immunity under 2-201 is inapplicable | City: Evidence shows case-by-case balancing of factors, i.e., discretionary policymaking | Held: Conduct was discretionary; not ministerial, so immunity applies |
| Whether Richter and related precedents support immunity | Monson: relied on cases distinguishing applicability of immunity | City: Richter and similar cases support discretionary immunity where official formulates/executes policy | Held: Richter controlling; case facts align with discretionary-immunity holdings, so summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richter v. College of Du Page, 3 N.E.3d 902 (Ill. App. 2d 2013) (discretionary policy decisions about sidewalk repairs can afford immunity)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 799 N.E.2d 273 (Ill. 2003) (two-pronged test for 2-201 immunity: policy determination plus discretionary execution)
- Kennell v. Clayton Township, 606 N.E.2d 812 (Ill. App. 1992) (distinguishing discretionary acts from ministerial duties under the Act)
- Hascall v. Williams, 996 N.E.2d 1168 (Ill. App. 4th 2013) (municipalities bear burden to prove immunity; 2-201 immunizes negligence and willful/wanton conduct)
- Courson v. Danville School District No. 118, 704 N.E.2d 447 (Ill. App. 1998) (absence of safety device not shown to be discretionary; no immunity)
- Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 163 N.E.2d 89 (Ill. 1959) (background: abrogated prior immunity and prompted statutory codification)