Negligently Piling Snow and Ice on Recreational Grounds Could Lead to Liability

In Moore v. Chicago Park District, 951 N.E.2d 1194, an Illinois appellate court recently held that local public entities may be liable for injuries caused by negligently clearing snow and ice from recreational grounds.  The question before the court on interlocutory appeal was weather snow and ice piled up by a Chicago Park District employee near the curbs of a park district parking lot should be considered a "condition" of the property under the Tort Immunity Act.  The Tort Immunity Act shields local public entities from liability for ordinary negligence "where the liability is based on the existence of a condition of any public property intended or permitted to be used for recreational purposes. . . ."  745 ILCS 10/3-106.

In this case, Sylvia Lee Moore went to a water aerobics class offered by the Chicago Park District in January of 2006.  Over the previous weekend, it had snowed several inches, but the Park District had plowed and cleared the parking lot.  A park district employee shoveled the sidewalks by pushing the snow to the curb.  After Moore finished the aerobics class, she headed for her car in the parking lot.  Moore had to step between two cars to get to where her car was parked.  As she did so, she tripped over the snow piled at the curb and broke her leg.  After undergoing surgery on her broken leg, Moore suffered brain damage and died.

Moore's family sued the park district for negligently creating an unsafe accumulation of ice and snow which caused Moore's injuries and death.  The Park District argued that it could not be held liable for Moore's death because the Tort Immunity Act shielded it from liability because her injuries were caused by the snow and ice, a condition of the recreational property. After the trial court denied the Park District's motion for summary judgment, the Park District sought and was granted leave to file an interlocutory appeal for the purpose of asking the appellate court whether the snow and ice was a condition of the property. 

The appellate court answered this question in the negative, holding that snow and ice shoveled by a public employee is not a condition of recreational property under the Tort Immunity Act.  Because the shoveled snow was not a condition of the property, the Park District could not rely on the Tort Immunity Act, and the Park District could be held liable for its employee's allegedly negligent conduct.

Because the case was before the appellate court on an interlocutory appeal, the appellate court's decision did not resolve the case or determine the Park District's liability.  However, per the appellate court's ruling, the Park District will not be able to rely on the Tort Immunity Act in the lower court to avoid liability.  It should also be noted that this decision applies to all local public entities, including park districts, school districts, and municipalities.