Illinois Supreme Court Denies Claim for Cyclist Injured by Pothole
An Illinois Supreme Court decision addresses when a cyclist can hold a municipality responsible for injuries caused by a pothole on a public roadway.
A Chicago cyclist who was injured after striking a pothole on a city street was unable to recover damages from the City of Chicago after the Illinois Supreme Court determined that he was not an intended user of the roadway at the location where the accident occurred.
The cyclist was legally permitted to ride on the roadway, but the street did not have a designated bicycle lane or bicycle-specific signage at the location of the accident. In Alave v. City of Chicago, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that being permitted to ride on a street is not enough by itself to establish that the city intended cyclists to use that particular area for purposes of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.
Quick Answer
The Illinois Supreme Court did not hold that cities can never be liable when a cyclist is injured by a pothole. Instead, the court held that this particular cyclist was a permitted user but not an intended user of the roadway where he fell. Under 745 ILCS 10/3-102, a local public entity’s duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition applies to people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property. The Supreme Court found that requirement was not satisfied in this case.
What Happened to the Chicago Cyclist?
The accident occurred in June 2019 when the cyclist was riding on the North Side of Chicago. 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 Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion, the cyclist suffered several significant 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, arguing that the city had a duty to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition.
The Cyclist Was Riding in Chicago
The plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the North Side of Chicago in June 2019.
His Bicycle Hit a Pothole
The bicycle struck a pothole in a crosswalk near West Leland Avenue and North Western Avenue.
The Cyclist Suffered Serious Injuries
The fall resulted in injuries including fractured teeth, facial injuries and scars, and injuries to the hip and shoulder.
The Supreme Court Ruled for Chicago
The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the cyclist was not an intended user of the roadway at the accident location and therefore was not owed the duty described in the Tort Immunity Act.
What Is the Difference Between a Permitted User and an Intended User?
This distinction is the heart of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision. A person can be legally allowed to use public property without being considered an intended user of that property for purposes of the Tort Immunity Act.
In simple terms, permitted means the person is allowed to be there. Intended asks whether the municipality has indicated that the particular property is meant to be used in that way.
Permitted User
The cyclist is legally allowed to ride on the roadway.
Intended User
The municipality must have indicated that it intended people to use that particular property in that particular manner.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means that simply proving that bicycles are legally permitted on a street may not establish that the city intended cyclists to use that specific roadway for purposes of 745 ILCS 10/3-102.
Why Did the Court Say the Cyclist Was Not an Intended User?
The roadway where the accident occurred did not contain a designated bicycle lane or bicycle-specific signage. The Supreme Court found that these circumstances were significant because they did not provide the type of affirmative physical indication that the city intended cyclists to use that particular area.
The cyclist pointed to a nearby Divvy bicycle-sharing station as evidence that Chicago intended bicyclists to use the area. The station was approximately 100 feet from the pothole. The Supreme Court concluded that the Divvy station demonstrated that bicycling was permitted in the area, but it did not establish that the city intended cyclists to use the specific roadway where the accident occurred.
No Designated Bike Lane
The roadway where the accident occurred was not marked as a designated bicycle lane.
No Bicycle-Specific Signage
There was no bicycle-specific signage at the location that indicated the roadway was intended for bicycle use.
Nearby Divvy Station
The nearby Divvy station showed that bicycle use was permitted, but the Supreme Court concluded that it did not establish an affirmative municipal intent to use the specific roadway where the pothole was located.
Another Bike Route Was Nearby
The court also considered that Chicago had designated a bicycle lane on Lincoln Avenue approximately one block away.
What Does the Illinois Tort Immunity Act Say?
The relevant law is the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, often called the Tort Immunity Act. It is more precise than simply describing the rule as “sovereign immunity.”
Under 745 ILCS 10/3-102, a local public entity has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for people whom it intended and permitted to use the property in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
The statute also provides that a local public entity generally is not liable for an unsafe condition unless it had actual or constructive notice of the condition in reasonably adequate time to take measures to remedy the condition or protect against it.
There Are Two Separate Issues
1. Intended and permitted use: Was the cyclist someone the city intended and permitted to use the property in that manner?
2. Notice: Did the city have actual or constructive notice of the pothole or other unsafe condition in enough time to do something about it?
In Alave, the Supreme Court resolved the first issue against the cyclist. Because it determined that he was not an intended user of the roadway where the pothole was located, the city did not owe him the statutory duty to maintain that portion of the road in a reasonably safe condition under section 3-102.
What Counts as Evidence That a City Intended Cyclists to Use a Road?
The Supreme Court’s decision makes physical features of a roadway particularly important. Bicycle-specific markings, signs, designated bicycle lanes, and other affirmative indications of bicycle use can be relevant when determining municipal intent.
Bike Lanes
A designated bicycle lane can be important evidence that the municipality intended cyclists to use that portion of the roadway.
Bicycle Signage
Bicycle-specific signs may help demonstrate an affirmative indication that cyclists are intended users.
Pavement Markings
Bicycle symbols, lane markings, and similar roadway markings may become important evidence.
Official Bike Routes
An officially designated bicycle route may help establish the municipality’s intended use of the roadway.
None of these factors should be treated as an automatic guarantee that a cyclist will win a lawsuit. Rather, they can provide evidence relevant to the intended-user question.
Does a Nearby Divvy Station Make a Difference?
In Alave, the cyclist argued that the nearby Divvy bicycle-sharing station supported his position that the city intended cyclists to use the roadway. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The court distinguished between allowing bicyclists to ride in an area and affirmatively indicating that bicyclists should use a particular roadway. The nearby Divvy station supported the first point but, in the court’s view, did not establish the second.
Permitted
The city allowed bicycle use on the roadway.
Intended
The court found no sufficient affirmative indication that the city intended cyclists to use that specific roadway.
What About the Bicycle Lane One Block Away?
The Supreme Court also considered the existence of a bicycle lane on Lincoln Avenue, approximately one block from where the accident occurred.
The court noted that Chicago’s municipal code allowed cyclists to use sidewalks in certain circumstances to reach bicycle lanes. The location of the designated bicycle lane therefore provided additional context concerning where the city had specifically indicated that cyclists should ride.
Location Matters
A cyclist injured on a roadway without bicycle markings may face a different legal analysis from a cyclist injured inside a designated bicycle lane. The exact location of the accident and the municipality’s treatment of that location can be critical.
Does This Mean Cyclists Can Never Sue a City for a Pothole?
No. That would be an overly broad reading of the decision.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the specific facts and the application of the Tort Immunity Act to the particular roadway where the plaintiff was injured. It does not establish that every cyclist injured by a pothole on government property is automatically barred from bringing a claim.
A cyclist’s claim may depend on whether the location was designated for bicycle use, whether there were bicycle lanes or markings, whether the municipality gave other affirmative indications of intended bicycle use, whether the municipality had notice of the defect, and whether any other legal issues affect the claim.
Was There a Designated Bicycle Lane?
The presence of a designated bicycle lane or bicycle-specific markings can be important evidence concerning whether the municipality intended cyclists to use that area.
Did the City Have Notice of the Pothole?
Notice can be an additional issue under the Tort Immunity Act. A plaintiff generally must establish actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition in sufficient time for the municipality to take reasonable corrective measures.
Was Another Party Responsible?
A bicycle accident can also involve a negligent driver, contractor, private property owner, or another party. The fact that a municipal claim may be difficult does not necessarily eliminate every potential source of recovery.
What Evidence Should an Injured Cyclist Preserve?
Because the intended-user question can depend heavily on the physical characteristics of the roadway, preserving evidence from the accident location can be especially important.
Photograph the Road
Photograph the pothole, roadway, crosswalk, nearby lanes, signs, bicycle markings, and surrounding intersections.
Document Bike Markings
Capture bicycle symbols, lane markings, bike-route signs, and other evidence indicating how the roadway was intended to be used.
Save Video and Witness Information
Traffic cameras, nearby surveillance footage, dash-camera recordings, and witnesses may help establish what happened.
Preserve Medical Evidence
Keep medical records, bills, photographs of injuries, and other documentation concerning the bicycle accident.
Illinois Law May Treat a Bicycle Accident Differently Depending on Where It Happens
The Alave decision shows why the location of a bicycle accident can be legally significant. A pothole in a designated bicycle lane presents a different question from a pothole in an ordinary roadway with no bicycle-specific markings or signage.
It is also important to remember that the Supreme Court did not say that a cyclist riding in a designated bicycle lane automatically wins a lawsuit against a municipality. Even when a cyclist is an intended and permitted user, other requirements of the Tort Immunity Act, including the notice requirement, may still matter.
The Main Takeaway
Being allowed to ride somewhere is not necessarily the same as the city intending cyclists to use that specific location. For a municipal bicycle accident claim, the exact roadway, markings, signs, designated routes, notice of the defect, and surrounding circumstances can all matter.
A Note About Proposed Changes to Illinois Law
The Illinois General Assembly considered legislation that would change the statutory treatment of bicyclists by expressly providing that a person operating a bicycle is an intended user of every roadway where bicyclists are permitted to ride. The proposal was introduced as House Bill 2454.
As of September 2026, however, that legislation has not become law. The bill’s most recent listed action was re-referral to the House Rules Committee in March 2026. The current text of 745 ILCS 10/3-102 therefore continues to use the existing “intended and permitted” language.
Current Status
The proposed legislation is important because it could change the rule discussed in Alave. But it has not changed the current statute, so the existing intended-user analysis remains important for Illinois municipal bicycle accident claims.
Talk to a Bicycle Accident Injury Attorney
Bicycle accidents can involve complicated questions about roadway design, municipal responsibility, driver negligence, defective roads, and governmental immunity. An injured cyclist should not assume that a pothole claim is automatically barred simply because the accident occurred outside a marked bicycle lane.
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents who have been injured in bicycling accidents. Often, a cyclist’s injuries are caused by a negligent driver, but roadway conditions and other factors may also need to be investigated.
Talk to a Bicycle Accident Injury Attorney
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois cyclists injured in accidents involving negligent drivers, dangerous roadway conditions, and potentially responsible municipalities.
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
Illinois Courts: Illinois Supreme Court Case No. 128602 – Alave v. City of Chicago
Illinois General Assembly: 745 ILCS 10/3-102 – Duty to Maintain Property
Illinois General Assembly: House Bill 2454
WTTW: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Chicago Not Liable for Street Pothole Not Intended for Cyclists
