Salvi v. The Village of Lake Zurich
2016 IL App (2d) 150249
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Marita Williams Salvi, successor trustee of the Albert S. Salvi Family Trust, owned a building abutting a stormwater detention pond (the Pond). A 2000 Easement Agreement among the Church, the Village of Lake Zurich (Village), and the Library governed the Pond’s use, maintenance, and a 60% maximum impervious coverage per parcel.
- Plaintiff alleged that beginning with Village work on the Pond (circa 2002) and later development (Village police station, Library) that exceeded impervious limits, the Village violated the Easement Agreement and Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance and improperly rehabilitated/maintained the Pond.
- After heavy rains in 2013 the Pond overflowed and flooded plaintiff’s building. Plaintiff sued the Village for trespass (willful/wanton and negligent), negligence based on common law and Village ordinances, breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, and sought mandamus relief to force remedial work.
- The Village moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1 (invoking Tort Immunity Act defenses and other grounds). The trial court dismissed all counts, finding Tort Immunity Act protections (and referencing an "act of God") and denied reconsideration.
- On appeal the Second District examined whether various provisions of the Tort Immunity Act barred plaintiff’s tort claims, whether contractual and mandamus claims were properly pleaded, and whether alternative grounds supported dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tort Immunity Act bars tort claims (counts I–III) | Village’s reconstruction and development violated Watershed Ordinance and common-law duties; Immunity does not apply to active misconduct | Tort Immunity Act immunizes governmental entities for many harms including effects of weather and failures to enforce | Reversed dismissal as to counts I–III: immunity provisions invoked (§§2-103, 2-104/2-206, 3-105) did not bar those tort claims because plaintiff alleges active noncompliance and conduct, not mere nonenforcement or discretionary permitting/administration |
| Whether §2-103 (failure to enforce) shields Village from liability for noncompliance with Watershed Ordinance | §2-103 protects only nonenforcement; does not shelter affirmative noncompliance | §2-103 bars liability for failure to enforce laws | Court: §2-103 does not apply because plaintiff alleges affirmative noncompliance and active conduct in reconstructing/maintaining the Pond |
| Whether Watershed Ordinance disclaimer bars liability | Plaintiff says disclaimer protects only those who follow the ordinance; liability remains for those who ignore it | Village argues the ordinance disclaims liability | Court: disclaimer does not bar claims where plaintiff alleges Village ignored ordinance requirements |
| Whether plaintiff can enforce Easement Agreement as third‑party beneficiary (count VI) | Plaintiff claims Agreement ultimately protects adjacent property and she is the intended beneficiary | Village says Agreement benefits only contracting parties and contains no express intent to benefit plaintiff | Dismissal of count VI affirmed: plaintiff failed to plead intended third‑party beneficiary status; dismissal affirmed but prejudice vacated to allow possible amendment |
| Whether mandamus (count VII) is available | Plaintiff seeks order compelling redesign/repairs and reporting of violations | Village argues mandamus is unavailable because requested relief is discretionary and other remedies exist | Count VII dismissal affirmed with prejudice: sought relief was discretionary and not an official ministerial duty; tort remedies available, so mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether §3-105 (weather/"act of God") immunizes Village | Plaintiff alleges Village’s conduct caused overflow; rain alone not sole proximate cause | Village argued §3-105 bars injuries caused by weather (rain) | Court: §3-105 inapplicable — it protects effects of weather on public ways; whether rain was sole cause is factual and not resolved on pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill. 2d 30 (discusses the public duty rule and governmental duty limits)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359 (Tort Immunity Act burdens and when immunities apply; municipalities liable like private landowners absent immunity)
- Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District, 2016 IL 117952 (abolition of the public‑duty rule)
- Burdinie v. Village of Glendale Heights, 139 Ill. 2d 501 (§2-103 codifies nonliability for failure to enforce local ordinances)
- Dial v. City of O’Fallon, 81 Ill. 2d 548 (analogies to private‑actor liability for piling/building causing runoff onto neighbor)