At the Chicago bicycle attorneys Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., our attorneys have long championed the rights of bicyclists across Illinois. As avid advocates for safer streets and comprehensive accountability, we have represented cyclists injured due to roadway defects, negligent drivers, and flawed infrastructure. With the rise in bike commuting and recreational riding, our legal team stays on the cutting edge of developments affecting bicycle law. Recent Illinois appellate decisions draw attention to the legal limitations placed on injured cyclists seeking justice.
For Illinois bicyclists, the sight of a paved path or quiet sidewalk might offer the promise of a safer ride. But two recent appellate decisions—Johnson v. Village of Palatine and Mankame v. Bloomingdale Township—reveal the precarious legal terrain that cyclists must navigate when the infrastructure fails them. Each case involves a serious personal injury to a bicyclist caused by defects or dangerous designs in public ways. Yet in both, the courts found that the municipalities could not be held liable, despite what might seem to a layperson like negligence. These decisions show how immunity doctrines and legal definitions can quietly shift the burden of injury, the cost of medical expenses, from the state to the cyclist.
In Johnson, the plaintiff was riding his bike along a sidewalk adjacent to Quentin Road in Palatine. It was a sunny June morning in 2020. As he approached an uneven slab of sidewalk, Johnson’s tire caught on a raised portion. He lost control and flew over the handlebars, landing in a bush and suffering serious injuries. He sued the Village, alleging negligent maintenance of the sidewalk. But the Village asserted it owed him no duty. Why? Because he was not an “intended user” of the sidewalk.
This seemingly arcane distinction became dispositive. Under section 3-102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a)), municipalities owe a duty of care only to those who are both permitted and intended users of public property. The Village conceded Johnson was permitted to ride on the sidewalk—its own ordinances allowed bicycles unless expressly prohibited. But permission was not enough. The Village argued that its infrastructure, policies, and even the physical dimensions of the sidewalk showed it was built for pedestrians, not cyclists. And the court agreed. Despite the absence of any signs telling Johnson not to ride there, he was held to be outside the scope of the Village’s legal duty. Summary judgment was affirmed in the Village’s favor and Johnson was left to bear his own cost for injuries, bills, and suffering.
Contrast this with Mankame, a tragic case arising from the death of Ramdas Mankame in September 2020. He was riding on the North Central DuPage Regional Trail, a 19-mile multi-jurisdictional path connecting forest preserves and suburban roads. His route that day took him from a boardwalk segment over a wetland onto an “on-road” portion of the trail along Lawrence Avenue. As he descended a slope toward an intersection with Garden Avenue, a car traveling north struck him. He died from his injuries.
The executor of his estate sued Bloomingdale Township and the Village of Bloomingdale, alleging negligent and willful conduct in trail design and maintenance. She claimed the transition from off-street trail to on-road segment, the downhill grade, and the absence of traffic control created a foreseeable and previously reported hazard. Another bicyclist had reportedly been hit at the same location earlier that year.
But the court dismissed the case. The key defense rested on section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act, which provides absolute immunity for a public entity’s Continue reading