Illinois Supreme Court Rules Bicyclists Can Only Sue Over Injuries Occurring in Bike Lanes
An Illinois Supreme Court decision limits when a cyclist can hold a municipality responsible for injuries caused by a pothole on a public roadway.
Cyclists generally have the right to use Illinois roads, but that does not necessarily mean that a municipality owes every cyclist a legal duty to keep every roadway reasonably safe for bicycle travel. A 2023 Illinois Supreme Court decision addressed this distinction after a Chicago cyclist was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole.
In Alave v. City of Chicago, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the cyclist was a permitted user of the roadway but was not an intended user at the location of the accident. Because the cyclist was not both an intended and permitted user, the court concluded that the City of Chicago did not owe him a duty of care under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. The court’s decision was unanimous.
Quick Answer
A cyclist may be a permitted user of a road because Illinois law allows bicycles on public streets, but that does not automatically make the cyclist an intended user for purposes of the Tort Immunity Act. Under the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Alave, signs, pavement markings, designated bicycle lanes, or other affirmative indications of municipal intent can be important when determining whether a city or other public entity owes a cyclist a duty to maintain the roadway.
Permitted User vs. Intended User: What Is the Difference?
The distinction can seem confusing, but it is important. A permitted user is someone who is legally allowed to use a public property. An intended user is someone the municipality has indicated it expects or intends to use that particular property in that particular manner.
The Illinois Supreme Court has explained that bicyclists are generally permitted to use public roadways. However, in the absence of specific markings, signage, or another affirmative manifestation showing that a municipality intended bicycling at a particular location, a cyclist may not qualify as an intended user under the Tort Immunity Act.
Permitted User
The cyclist is legally allowed to use the roadway.
Intended User
The evidence must show whether the municipality intended cyclists to use that particular roadway or area.
The distinction does not mean that cyclists are never intended users of public streets. Rather, the Supreme Court’s decision requires an examination of the specific location and the evidence of the municipality’s intent.
The Chicago Pothole Lawsuit
The case involved a Chicago cyclist who was riding on the North Side of Chicago in June 2019. He struck a pothole while riding through a crosswalk near the intersection of West Leland Avenue and North Western Avenue and was thrown from his bicycle.
According to the court’s opinion, the cyclist suffered permanent injuries, including fractured teeth, facial cuts and scars, and injuries to his hip and shoulder. He filed a negligence lawsuit against the City of Chicago, alleging that the city had failed to properly maintain the roadway and crosswalk.
Cyclist Encounters Pothole
The cyclist was riding on West Leland Avenue when his bicycle struck a pothole near the crosswalk at North Western Avenue.
Serious Injuries Result
He fell from his bicycle and suffered significant injuries, including fractured teeth and facial injuries.
Lawsuit Filed Against Chicago
The cyclist alleged that the city negligently failed to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition.
Illinois Supreme Court Rules for Chicago
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that the cyclist was not an intended user of the roadway at the accident location.
Why Did the Illinois Supreme Court Rule Against the Cyclist?
The cyclist argued that Chicago intended bicyclists to use the roadway. Among other things, he pointed to the city’s bicycle policies, the nearby Divvy bicycle-share station, and Chicago ordinances governing bicyclists.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument. The court explained that a nearby Divvy station demonstrated that the city permitted bicycling on the roadway, but it did not by itself establish that the city intended bicyclists to use that specific roadway.
There Was a Divvy Station Nearby
The plaintiff argued that a city-authorized Divvy station approximately 100 feet away from the pothole demonstrated that Chicago intended bicycles to use the roadway. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that the station showed permission to bicycle in the area, but not an affirmative intent that cyclists use that particular roadway.
There Was No Bike Lane at the Accident Site
The roadway where the accident occurred was not marked as a bicycle lane or bicycle route. The court considered that absence significant when determining whether the city intended cyclists to use the roadway.
Another Bicycle Route Was Nearby
The court also considered the fact that the city’s bicycle map identified a bicycle lane on Lincoln Avenue, approximately one block from the accident location.
What Does the Illinois Tort Immunity Act Say?
The Illinois Tort Immunity Act contains an important rule governing injuries that occur on property owned or controlled by local governments. 745 ILCS 10/3-102 provides that a local public entity has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
The statute also contains a notice requirement. A public entity generally is not liable for an unsafe condition unless the plaintiff can establish that the entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition in enough time before the injury to take reasonable measures to remedy or protect against it.
Two Questions Matter
1. Was the cyclist an intended and permitted user of the property?
2. Did the municipality have actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition in sufficient time to address it?
The Alave decision focused on the first question. Because the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the cyclist was permitted, but not intended, to use the roadway at the location of the accident, it held that Chicago owed him no duty under section 3-102(a).
What Can Show That a Municipality Intended Cyclists to Use a Road?
The Supreme Court’s decision does not mean a cyclist can never establish intended-user status. The court specifically discussed the importance of affirmative physical manifestations of a municipality’s intent, such as bicycle-specific signage or pavement markings.
That means evidence showing that the roadway was specifically designed, marked, or designated for bicycle use can be important when evaluating a potential claim against a municipality.
Bike Lane
A designated bicycle lane can be evidence that the municipality intended cyclists to use that portion of the roadway.
Bicycle Signage
Bicycle-specific signs or pavement markings may be important evidence of intended use.
Designated Bicycle Route
A roadway specifically designated as part of a municipal bicycle route may support an intended-user argument.
Other Manifestations
Other affirmative evidence of municipal intent may also matter depending on the particular roadway and circumstances.
What About a Bike Lane That Has a Pothole?
The Alave decision is particularly important when a cyclist is injured by a pothole on a roadway that does not have bicycle-specific markings or other evidence showing that the municipality intended cyclists to use that particular area.
But the case should not be read to mean that every cyclist injured by a municipal pothole automatically has no claim. The intended-user analysis is location-specific, and other facts can matter. For example, a designated bicycle lane, bicycle route, or other municipal indication of intended bicycle use can materially change the analysis.
The Location Matters
Two potholes on the same city street could present different legal questions if one is located inside a designated bicycle lane and the other is located on an ordinary roadway with no bicycle markings or signage. The municipality’s intended use of the specific location can be important.
What Evidence Should an Injured Cyclist Preserve?
Because intended-user status can depend on physical features and municipal designations, preserving evidence from the scene can be especially important after a bicycle accident involving a pothole or other roadway defect.
Photograph the Accident Location
Photographs should show the pothole, surrounding roadway, bike lanes, bicycle symbols, signs, crosswalks, nearby intersections, and any other markings or features that may help establish how the area was intended to be used.
Document Bicycle Signage and Road Markings
Bicycle-specific pavement markings, signs, lane designations, and route indicators can be particularly important when evaluating whether the municipality intended cyclists to use the roadway.
Preserve Medical Records
Emergency-room records, imaging, treatment notes, photographs of injuries, and other medical documentation can help establish the nature and extent of the injuries caused by the fall.
Identify Witnesses and Video
Witness statements, nearby surveillance footage, traffic-camera recordings, and other video may help establish the condition of the roadway and the circumstances of the accident.
Check Municipal Bicycle Maps
Official city or municipal bicycle maps and route-designation records can help determine whether the roadway was identified as a bicycle route or designated for bicycle use.
Does the Pothole Still Matter If the City Had Notice?
Yes, but notice is only one part of the analysis. Under 745 ILCS 10/3-102, a public entity’s notice of an unsafe condition can matter when determining liability. However, a plaintiff must first satisfy the statute’s requirement concerning the people whom the municipality intended and permitted to use the property.
In other words, proving that a city knew about a pothole does not necessarily resolve the case in the cyclist’s favor. The intended-user issue can come first.
Intended + Permitted
The municipality may owe a duty under the Tort Immunity Act.
Notice
The plaintiff may also need to establish that the city had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition.
Injury
There must ultimately be a legally recognized injury and a sufficient connection between the unsafe condition and the injury.
The Supreme Court’s Decision Does Not Eliminate All Bicycle Injury Claims
The Alave decision is specifically about a cyclist’s claim against a public entity under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. It does not mean that a cyclist injured in Illinois has no legal claim whenever a pothole is involved.
A cyclist may have a claim involving a negligent driver, a private property owner, a business, a construction contractor, or another responsible party. A claim against a municipality also may involve different facts if the roadway was specifically designated or marked for bicycle use.
Look at the Entire Accident
A bicycle accident investigation should not stop at identifying the pothole. An attorney may also need to determine whether a municipality, motorist, property owner, contractor, or another party contributed to the accident and whether different legal theories apply.
What This Means for Injured Cyclists in Illinois
The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling makes the location and design of a roadway particularly important when a cyclist is injured because of a pothole or other defect on public property. A cyclist’s right to legally ride on a street does not automatically establish that the municipality intended cyclists to use every part of that street for purposes of the Tort Immunity Act.
Signs, bicycle lanes, pavement markings, official bicycle routes, and other evidence of municipal intent can therefore become important when investigating a potential claim.
The specific facts of the accident matter. Before assuming that a city is immune from liability, an injured cyclist should have the roadway, markings, municipal designations, notice evidence, and circumstances of the accident carefully reviewed.
Talk to a Danville, IL Bicycle Accident Injury Lawyer
Patel Law, PC represents injured cyclists in personal injury claims involving negligent drivers, dangerous roadway conditions, and potentially negligent municipalities. Our attorneys can investigate the accident and determine what parties may be legally responsible.
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Our attorneys can review the circumstances of a bicycle accident and explain the legal options that may be available.
Sources
Alave v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL 128602
Illinois General Assembly: 745 ILCS 10/3-102
WTTW: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Chicago Not Liable for Street Pothole Not “Intended” for Cyclists
