ILCS » Chapter 220 · Act 50
Illinois Compiled Statutes

220 ILCS 50/9 (2026)

Negligence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(220 ILCS 50/9) (from Ch. 111 2/3, par. 1609)
    Sec. 9. Negligence.
    (a) When it is shown by competent evidence in any action for damages to facilities that such damages resulted from excavation or demolition and that the excavator engaged in such excavation or demolition failed to comply with the provisions of this Act, that excavator shall be deemed prima facie guilty of negligence.
    (b) When it is shown by competent evidence in any action for damages to excavators, material, or equipment brought by excavators undertaking excavation or demolition acting in compliance with the provisions of this Act that such damages resulted from the failure of underground utility facility owners or operators to comply with the provisions of this Act, those underground utility facility owners or operators shall be deemed prima facie guilty of negligence.
(Source: P.A. 103-614, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1996–2007 · leading case: Excavation Tech., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Excavation Tech., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “220 ILCS 50/9 (West 2007). ¶ 15 Similarly, in A & L Underground, Inc.”
Coastal Conduit & Ditching, Inc. v. Noram Energy Corp., 29 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. App. 2000). “2d at 1124 -25 (citing 220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1994)). 3 Similarly, in A & L Underground, Inc.”
Followell v. Cent. Illinois Pub. Serv. Co., 663 N.E.2d 1122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly construed section 9 of the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1994)) to bar its claim.”
Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Plote, Inc., 778 N.E.2d 1203 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “Count II purports to state a claim for a violation by Bell of the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (Underground Facilities Act) (220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1996)). Count III purports to state a claim for common law negligence.”
Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Lake Cnty. Grading Co. of Libertyville, Inc., 728 N.E.2d 1178 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1996). Given the fact that the Act prohibits at any jobsite the conduct that plaintiff sought to enjoin, we concur with plaintiffs position that it is illogical to assume that the legislature intended that the court’s authority to enter an injunction is…”
N. Illinois Gas Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Co., 704 N.E.2d 960 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “In December 1994 plaintiff filed a verified complaint, seeking recovery for damages to its facilities as a result of defendant’s alleged negligence, pursuant to section 9 of the Act (220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1996)). Defendant denied the material allegations of negligence contained in…”
Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Plote, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “Count II purports to state a claim for a violation by Bell of the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (Underground Facilities Act) (220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1996)). Count III purports to state a claim for common law negligence.”
NIGas Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “In December 1994 plaintiff filed a verified complaint, seeking recovery for damages to its facilities as a result of defendant's alleged negligence, pursuant to section 9 of the Act (220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1996)). Defendant denied the material allegations of negligence contained in…”
Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Lake Cnty. Grading Co. of Libertyville, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “220 ILCS 50/9 (West 1996). Given the fact that the Act prohibits at any jobsite the conduct that plaintiff sought to enjoin, we concur with plaintiff's position that it is illogical to assume that the legislature intended that the court's authority to enter an injunction is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.