Pikovsky v. North Skokie Boulevard Condominium Association
2011 IL App (1st) 103742
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- 8460 North Skokie Boulevard building rear entrance sidewalk on private property; Canopy Snow Plowing and Maintenance Hot Line contracted to clear snow, but rear sidewalk not included in contracts
- Tamara fell February 21, 2008 on icy snow mounds allegedly plowed from the parking lot onto the rear sidewalk
- Tamara sued Skokie and Rosen for negligence; they moved for summary judgment arguing immunity under the Illinois Snow and Ice Removal Act (Act) and asserting ordinances did not apply
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding the Act immunized Skokie and Rosen and that Skokie municipal ordinances did not apply
- Tamara argued the Act did not cover them because no removal attempt occurred, the ordinances applied, and the Act preempted the ordinances; the appellate court affirmed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act bar Tamara's negligence claim against Skokie and Rosen? | Tamara argues they never attempted removal and thus are not protected | Skokie and Rosen were immunized for removal acts or omissions under §2 of the Act | Yes; Act immunizes absent willful or wanton conduct |
| Are Skokie obstructions and snow removal/disposal ordinances applicable? | Ordinances should apply to rear sidewalk as a public safety measure | Rear sidewalk is private; not a public way; obstructions/snow disposal ordinances inapplicable | Ordinances inapplicable; not a public way or service walk governing liability |
| Does the Act preempt the Skokie ordinances? | Act preempts local ordinances; conflicts exist | Ordinances do not apply, making preemption moot | Preemption not reached; ordinances inapplicable; no conflict to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. Union Square Condominium Homeowners Ass'n, 397 Ill. App. 3d 1037 (Ill. App. 2010) (Act immunity for willful or wanton conduct exception)
- Sullivan v. City of Hillsboro, 303 Ill. App. 3d 650 (Ill. App. 1999) (willful/wanton standard for negligence)
- Ragan v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Co., 183 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 1998) (de novo standard on summary judgment review)
- Pfister v. Shusta, 167 Ill. 2d 417 (Ill. 1995) (definition of willful and wanton conduct)
- Kurczak v. Cornwell, 359 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (Ill. App. 2005) (definition of willful or wanton conduct)
- Landers v. Equity Property & Development, 321 Ill. App. 3d 57 (Ill. App. 2001) (evidentiary material not considered on reconsideration)
- Sullivan v. City of Hillsboro, 303 Ill. App. 3d 650 (Ill. App. 1999) (willful/wanton as knowledge and deliberate disregard)
- DTCT, Inc. v. City of Chicago Department of Revenue, 407 Ill. App. 3d 945 (Ill. App. 2011) (statutory interpretation of ordinances)