Illinois Compiled Statutes
745 ILCS 10/3-102 (2026)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used, and shall not be liable for injury unless it is proven that it has actual or constructive notice of the existence of such a condition that is not reasonably safe in reasonably adequate time prior to an injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against such condition
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 10/3-102)
(from Ch. 85, par. 3-102)
Sec. 3-102.
(a) Except
as otherwise provided in this Article, a local
public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its
property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of
ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the
property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably
foreseeable that it would be used, and shall not be liable for injury
unless it is proven that it has actual or constructive notice of the
existence of such a condition that is not reasonably safe in reasonably
adequate
time prior to an injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against
such condition.
(b) A public entity does not have constructive notice of a condition of
its property that is not reasonably safe within the meaning of Section
3-102(a) if it establishes either:
(1) The existence of the condition and its character of not being
reasonably safe would not have been discovered by an inspection system that
was reasonably adequate considering the practicability and cost of
inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the potential
danger to which failure to inspect would give rise to inform the public
entity whether the property was safe for the use or uses for which the
public entity used or intended others to use the public property and for
uses that the public entity actually knew others were making of the public
property or adjacent property; or
(2) The public entity maintained and operated such an inspection system
with due care and did not discover the condition.
(Source: P.A. 84-1431.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 162
cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2018).
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2018). “See 745 ILCS 10/3-102 ( West 2012 ). The majority's reasoning to the contrary is not correct.”
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2019). “¶ 54 The plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that section 3-102 was intended to control over section 2-201 where a local public entity fails to remedy or protect against a condition on its property that rendered it not reasonably safe for permitted and intended…”
Gaston v. City of Danville, 912 N.E.2d 771 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Later in April 2008, the city filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102 (a) (West 2006)) and sovereign immunity protected it from liability.”
Alave v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL 128602 (Ill. 2023). “745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2018). ¶ 10 The certified statement of David Smith—the projects administrator in the City’s department of transportation—was attached as exhibit B to the amended motion to dismiss, pursuant to section 1-109 of the Code.”
Boub v. Twp. of Wayne, 702 N.E.2d 535 (Ill. 1998). “745 ILCS 10/3-102 ( West 1992 ). The majority's conclusion that bicyclists are not intended users of roads defies common sense, contravenes statutory authority, and frustrates public policy.”
Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 796 N.E.2d 1040 (Ill. 2003). “There, the plaintiff parked at McCormick Place and walked toward Soldier Field for a Bears football game.”
Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort, 651 N.E.2d 1115 (Ill. 1995). “Section 3-102(a) states in pertinent part: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the…”
Perfetti v. Marion Cnty., Illinois, 2013 IL App (5th) 110489 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2006). ¶ 18 The Illinois Supreme Court has noted that section 3-102(a)’s purpose is not to grant defenses and immunities but to codify, for the benefit of intended and permitted users, the common law duty of a local public body to properly maintain…”
Hough v. Kalousek, 665 N.E.2d 433 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “The court gave two reasons for its decision: (1) the court agreed with Oak Lawn that the complaint could not establish that Oak Lawn had proximately caused the accident, and (2) the court held that Oak Lawn had no duty towards the decedent under section 3-102(a) of the Local…”
Tzakis v. Berger Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 170859 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “Counts XXXVI (against the District), LVII (against Park Ridge), and LXXIV (against Maine Township) were for “statutory duty to maintain property” and alleged that section 3-102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745…”
Burns v. City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 151925 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “-5 1-15-1925 ¶ 20 Under Illinois law, a municipality has a duty to “exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition” (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2012)), and this duty extends to keeping sidewalks safe for the purposes for which they are intended…”
Sisk v. Williamson Cnty., 657 N.E.2d 903 (Ill. 1995). “A municipality's duty to maintain its property is limited by section 3-102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Act) (745 ILCS 10/3-102 (West 1992)). ( Vaughn, 166 Ill.”
— 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) — 135 cases
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2018). “See 745 ILCS 10/3-102 ( West 2012 ). The majority's reasoning to the contrary is not correct.”
Alave v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL 128602 (Ill. 2023). “745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2018). ¶ 10 The certified statement of David Smith—the projects administrator in the City’s department of transportation—was attached as exhibit B to the amended motion to dismiss, pursuant to section 1-109 of the Code.”
Gaston v. City of Danville, 912 N.E.2d 771 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Later in April 2008, the city filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102 (a) (West 2006)) and sovereign immunity protected it from liability.”
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2019). “¶ 54 The plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that section 3-102 was intended to control over section 2-201 where a local public entity fails to remedy or protect against a condition on its property that rendered it not reasonably safe for permitted and intended…”
Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 796 N.E.2d 1040 (Ill. 2003). “There, the plaintiff parked at McCormick Place and walked toward Soldier Field for a Bears football game.”
— 745 ILCS 10/3-102(b) — 11 cases
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2018). “See 745 ILCS 10/3-102 ( West 2012 ). The majority's reasoning to the contrary is not correct.”
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2019). “¶ 54 The plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that section 3-102 was intended to control over section 2-201 where a local public entity fails to remedy or protect against a condition on its property that rendered it not reasonably safe for permitted and intended…”
Heath v. City of Naperville, 2024 IL App (3d) 230663 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
Krivokuca v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App (1st) 152397 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Krivokuca v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App (1st) 152397 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
— 745 ILCS 10/3-102(b)(1) — 3 cases
T.S. v. Joliet Pub. Schs. Dist. 86, 2021 IL App (3d) 190076-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Patterson v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 241716-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
Burlingame v. Chicago Park Dist. (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
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.
|