Illinois Compiled Statutes
745 ILCS 10/3-105 (2026)
(a) Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by the effect of weather conditions as such on the use of streets, highways, alleys, sidewalks or other public ways, or places, or the ways adjoining any of the foregoing, or the signals, signs, markings, traffic or pedestrian control devices, equipment or structures on or near any of the foregoing or the ways adjoining any of the foregoing
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 10/3-105)
(from Ch. 85, par. 3-105)
Sec. 3-105.
(a) Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable
for an injury caused by the effect of weather conditions as such on the
use of streets, highways, alleys,
sidewalks or other public ways, or places, or the ways adjoining any of the
foregoing, or the signals, signs, markings, traffic or pedestrian control
devices, equipment or structures on or near any of the foregoing or the
ways adjoining any of the foregoing.
For the purpose of this section, the effect of weather conditions
as such includes but is not limited to the effect of wind, rain,
flood, hail, ice or snow but does not include
physical damage to or deterioration of streets, highways, alleys,
sidewalks, or other public ways or place or the ways
adjoining any of the foregoing, or the signals, signs, markings, traffic or
pedestrian control devices, equipment or structures on or near any of the
foregoing or the ways adjoining any of the foregoing resulting from weather
conditions.
(b) Without implied limitation, neither a local public entity nor a
public employee is liable for any injury caused by the failure of a local
public entity or a public employee to upgrade any existing
street, highway, alley, sidewalk or other public way or place, or the ways
adjoining any of the foregoing, or the signals, signs, markings, traffic or
pedestrian control devices, equipment or structures on or near such street,
highway, alley, sidewalk or other public way or place, or the ways
adjoining any of the foregoing from the standards, if any, which existed at
the time of the original dedication to, or acquisition of, the right of way
of such street, highway, alley, sidewalk or other public way or place, or
the ways adjoining any of the foregoing, by the first local public entity
to acquire the property or right of way, to standards which are or may be
applicable or are imposed by any government or other person or organization
between the time of such dedication and the time of such injury.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall relieve the local public entity of the
duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of its property as set
forth in Section 3-102.
(Source: P.A. 84-1431.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 2012 IL 112788 (Ill. 2012).
Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 2012 IL 112788 (Ill. 2012). “This characterization is a reference to the common law natural accumulation rule, codified in section 3-105(a) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2008)). See Ziencina v.”
Snyder v. Curran Twp., 657 N.E.2d 988 (Ill. 1995). “" (745 ILCS 10/3-105(b) (West 1992).) Taken together, these well-delineated sections indicate that the General Assembly has carefully considered the liability of public entities with respect to traffic control devices.”
Hussey v. Chase Manor Condo. Assoc., 2018 IL App (1st) 170437 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2012). As its title implies, that statute does not protect anything but public entities, for injuries occurring on government-controlled-that is, public-property.”
Grabinski v. Forest Preserve Dist., 2020 IL App (1st) 191267 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “The Forest Preserve’s supplement also raised three governmental tort immunities: (1) no liability for failure to inspect the property of others (745 ILCS 10/2-105 (West 2016)), (2) no liability for the effects of weather on roadways (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2016)), and (3) no…”
Salvi v. Vill. of Lake Zurich, 2016 IL App (2d) 150249 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) ( West 2014 ). According to the Village, plaintiff’s complaint “clearly alleges that it was a heavy rain that ultimately caused the water to overflow into the pond.”
Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 951 N.E.2d 1194 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “3-105(a) (now certified at 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998) ("It is clear that a local public entity has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from public property.”
Rios v. City of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “745 ILCS 10/3-105(a)(West 1998); Davis v.”
Brown v. Vill. of Lisle, 2023 IL App (2d) 210732-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “Defendant contended, inter alia, that it owed plaintiff no duty of care because she slipped on a natural accumulation of ice, and it was immune from liability for injuries caused by weather conditions pursuant to section 3- 105(a) of the Act (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2018)).…”
Manuel v. Red Hill Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 10 Bd. of Educ. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Section 3-102(a) of the Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 1998)) provides immunity for actions arising from a local public entity's maintenance of property, and section 3-105(a) (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998)) provides immunity for injury caused by the effect of weather…”
Siegel v. Vill. of Wilmette (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998). Defendant also asserted that it owed no duty to plaintiff because the condition complained of was open and obvious to plaintiff.”
Int'l Memory Prods. of Illinois, Inc. v. Metro. Pier & Exposition Auth. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “) 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998). Plaintiff maintains that section 3-105(a) does not apply to the facts of this case because sections 3-102(a) and 3-105(c) impose a duty on MPEA to reasonably protect it from the damaging effect of the wind to its property.”
— 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) — 10 cases
Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 2012 IL 112788 (Ill. 2012). “This characterization is a reference to the common law natural accumulation rule, codified in section 3-105(a) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2008)). See Ziencina v.”
Hussey v. Chase Manor Condo. Assoc., 2018 IL App (1st) 170437 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2012). As its title implies, that statute does not protect anything but public entities, for injuries occurring on government-controlled-that is, public-property.”
Grabinski v. Forest Preserve Dist., 2020 IL App (1st) 191267 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “The Forest Preserve’s supplement also raised three governmental tort immunities: (1) no liability for failure to inspect the property of others (745 ILCS 10/2-105 (West 2016)), (2) no liability for the effects of weather on roadways (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2016)), and (3) no…”
Salvi v. Vill. of Lake Zurich, 2016 IL App (2d) 150249 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) ( West 2014 ). According to the Village, plaintiff’s complaint “clearly alleges that it was a heavy rain that ultimately caused the water to overflow into the pond.”
Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 951 N.E.2d 1194 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “3-105(a) (now certified at 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998) ("It is clear that a local public entity has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from public property.”
— 745 ILCS 10/3-105(b) — 1 case
Snyder v. Curran Twp., 657 N.E.2d 988 (Ill. 1995). “" (745 ILCS 10/3-105(b) (West 1992).) Taken together, these well-delineated sections indicate that the General Assembly has carefully considered the liability of public entities with respect to traffic control devices.”
— 745 ILCS 10/3-105(c) — 2 cases
Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 2012 IL 112788 (Ill. 2012). “This characterization is a reference to the common law natural accumulation rule, codified in section 3-105(a) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 2008)). See Ziencina v.”
Moore v. Chicago Park Dist., 951 N.E.2d 1194 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “3-105(a) (now certified at 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998) ("It is clear that a local public entity has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from public property.”
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.
|