1

Ru le 23 or der filed NO. 5-07-0002 February 15, 2008; Mot ion t o pu bli sh gr an ted I N THE March 24, 2008. AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS FI FTH DI STRICT

__________________ ___________________________________________________ ___ _ ALBER T TR TANJ an d MA RY T RTAN J, ) Appeal f rom the fo r t he Use of

ST ATE FAR M FI RE AN D ) Circui t Court of CAS UAL TY COMPA NY, ) Madison County. ) Plaintif

fs-Appellants , ) ) v. ) No. 02-L- 958 ) THE CITY OF GRA NI TE CITY, ) Ho nora ble ) D anie l J. Sta ck, Defendant-Appe llee
. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

_________________________________________ _____________________ ___________ PR ESIDIN G JU STICE STE W ART delivered the op inion o f the co urt: The plain tiffs a ppe al an ord er o f the circu it cou rt of M adis on C oun ty gra ntin g a summary judg ment in f avor of the de fend ant, the City o f Gra nite C ity (Granite C ity). We affirm i n part, rever se in part, and remand for furt her proceedings. BACKGR OUND Plaintiffs Albert

and Mary Trtanj ( the Trt anjs) own a reside nce o n O aklaw n D rive in Gra nite City, Illi nois. Thi s acti on was broug ht by plai ntiff State F arm F ire and Cas ualty Company (State Farm) ag ainst Granite Ci ty on behal f of the T rtanjs to recove r dam ages to the Trtanjs' residence and personal p roperty as a re sult of se wa ge bac king up in to their basementon July 22, 2001. State Farm paid a por tion of the dam ages su ffered by th e Trta njs and brought this lawsu it pursuant to State Farm's right of s ubro gation under an i nsurance policy issued to the Trt anjs. The record es tabli shes that G ranite City' s sewage sys tem is a grav ity- fed sewer sys tem in which the sewag e flows by g ravi ty thr ough sewer pi pes to a ce rta in depth and, at t hat2

poin t, lift stations lift th e sew age to a n ew height so that the gravitationa l flo w c ontin ues thro ugh the sewer

pip es. Th e l ift

stations utili zed by Granit e City oper ate on el ectri cal pumps. On the night of July 22, 2 001, a rains torm caus ed a p ow er ou tage to thre e of G ranite City's sewage lift stations, including the T errace Lane lift station, wh ich is loc ated d irectly downstream from th e Trta njs' residen ce. Alth ough th e electr i ci ty fl ow to th e l ift s ta ti on 's pumps cease d du ring the p ow er ou tage, sew age flow to the lift sta tion co nti nu ed. The
sew age lev el at

the Terr ace Lane l ift

station rose to it s maximum capacity, and sewage the n began backi ng up al ong the sewer pipe s ystem upst ream from the lift station a nd eve ntually into the Trtan js' baseme nt. The superintend ent of streets for G ranit e City at the tim e of this incide nt, G erald Laki n, testifi ed about the procedures Granite Ci ty fol lows when there i s a power outage to
a sewage lift s tation. When there is a pow er o utage to a li ft st ation' s elect ric pump, a batt erypow ered a larm n otifies the Gra nite City poli ce department, and t he polic e department the n notif ies the ci ty' s street department of the power outa ge. Worker s from t he str eet department t hen retrieve, se t up, a nd ru n a by pass p ump at the lift statio n un til electrical pow er i s rest ored. Accordingto Lak

in, when the power went out on J u ly 22, 2001, t

hey had to set

up bypass pum ps at thr ee diffe rent lift station s, inclu ding the Terra ce Lan e lift stati o n. The stre et department

chose to s et up the bypass pump at the Terr ace Lane li ft st ation l ast. They chose the order

in which t o set up t

he bypass pumps bas ed on the v olume of s ewage that
norm ally flowed int o the res pecti ve st ations . Lakin st ated i n his dep osit ion that from the ti me everyone arri ved at the stre et department' s faci lit y, it took appr oxim ately o ne ho ur to setup each bypass pump. Therefore , the Terr ace Lane lift station pump w as dow n more than two or th ree h our s be fore its by pas s pu mp wa s ho oked up a nd r unn ing. Lakin als o st atedthat

the c ity' s st orm wa ter drain age sys tem w as a tota lly sepa rate3

systemfrom the city's sewer sy stem. However, acc ording to Lak in, the main sewer pi pe
serv icingthe T rtanjs' hom e w as ma de of clay, a nd th e city had p roblem s with outsi de water infi ltr atingthis clay sew er pipe , espe cially during periods of heavy r ain. Outsi de storm water infi ltr atinginto t

he sew er m ain d ecre ase d th e se we r ma in's ca pac ity to han dle s ew age flow and lesse ned the time it

took f or sewage to back up i nto the Trtanjs ' ba sement af ter t he power outag e. Lakin tes tif

ied that the ci ty was aware of outsi de water i nfil tration upst ream fr om the Terrace L ane lift sta tion but did not make any effort to reduce the amount of inf ilt rati on. Gr anite City' s superintend ent of streets at the time of the h earing, Rick Fan cher, testifi ed that i t shoul d only take 15 minute s for t he str eetcrew to a rrive at a lift station w ith a po rtab le pu mp onc e the statio n's po we r ou tage alarm s ounds and that it t akes 15 mi nutes to hook up aportable by pass pum p at the lift station once i t arrive s. Fancher testi fied t hat it should n ever take two or three h ours for the street crew to get a portable pum p to a lift station. The plaintiffs file d their initial c omplaint agai nst Grani te City on July 5, 2002, and they file d a n a me nd ed co mp lai nt on Ju ly 15 , 2 00 5. In count Iof the amended complai nt, the plaintiffs alle ged that Granite City' s negl ige nce in i ts oper ationand maint enance of th e c it y's
sewer systemprox imately ca us ed th e d am age to th e T rta nj s' re al a nd pe rso na l p ro pe rty . In
co un t II of the a men ded c omp laint, the y alleged a cau se of a ction a gainst G ranite C ity for
a temporary nuisance arisi ng fr om the sewage backup, a nd in coun t IIIof th e amended complaint, they alleged a cause o f action against Gran ite City for a trespass. On Ma y 12, 20 06, G ranite City filed a mo tion for a summary judg ment. In its motion fora sum mary judgme nt, G ranite City argued that t he plaintif

fs' clai ms were barre d under the stat ute of r epose (735 ILCS 5/13- 214 (West 2006)), tha t it was entitled to discretionary immu nity under section 2-201 of the Local Go vernmental and Governm ental Emp loyees T ort Immun ity Act (745 ILCS 10/2- 201 (West 2006)), and that i t was not l iable for the plaintif fs'4

da mages be ca us e the se wer ba ckup o cc urre d du ri ng an ex tr ao rd in ary r ai ns to rm . On November 29, 2006, the circui t court entere d the fo ll ow in g o rd er gr an ti ng G ra ni te C it y's motion for a su mma ry jud gment:

"Th is matte r comes for hearing on Defendan t' s Motion for Summary Judgment fil ed 12 May 2006. Arguments heard; c ounsel g ranted l eave t o fil e support ing documentation. Now after havi ng had an opport unity to r eview the au thority present ed by both sides, the Court hereby grants Defendant' s Motion for Sum mary Judgment ." (Emph asis in original.) The plaintiff

s fil ed a ti mely noti ce of appealon December 27, 2006.

AN AL Y SIS A s umm ary jud gment is a ppro priate w hen " the ple adings, depo sitions, a nd ad missio n s
on file, together with the aff idavit s, if any, show that there i s no genuine iss ue as to any materi al fact an d that th e moving part y is entitl ed to a j udgment a s a matter of l aw." 735 I LCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2006); People ex rel. Depart

ment of Labor v. General Electr ic Co. , 347 Il l. App. 3d 72, 78 (2004). Becaus e a summary j udgment i s a drast ic method of termi natinglitigation, the review ing cou rt must c onstru e the e videnc e stric tly a gai nst the movant and liber ally i n fa vo r of t he nonm oving party. Turner Inves tors v. Pirk l , 338 Ill. App. 3d 6 76, 6 81 (2 003 ). A sum mary judgme nt mu st be gran ted w ith cau tion to a void preempti ng a litigant' s right to fully present the factual basis o f his claim. Lamkin v. Towner , 246 Ill. App. 3d 201, 2 04 (199 3). In rulingon a summary judgment mo tion, the circuit court must const

rue the pl eading s, aff

idav its , deposit

ions, andadmissi ons on file strictly ag ainst the movingparty and l iberal ly in f av or of t he op ponent, and t he court s hould gr ant the motion only if these m aterials e stablish with out d oub t that the m oving pa rty is entitl ed to a summary judgment. Lam kin , 246 I ll. App. 3d at 204. O n a n a pp ea l fro m th e g ra nt of a s um m ar y j ud gm en t, th e a pp el la te co ur t's review is5

de novo and is l imited to det ermini ng whether t he tri al court cor

rectl y found that

no issue of materi al fact ex isted an d, if none existed, whether the tri al court correctly ente red a judg ment
as a matt er of law. General Casualty Co. of Ill inois v. Carroll

Tili ng Service , Inc. , 342 Ill. App. 3d 88 3, 88 9 ( 20 03 ). In th e p re se ntca se , we hold that there are material i ssues of fact which preclude the entry of a summary j udgment i n favor of Granit e City on al l theories of liabi lit y. The plaintiffs a llege in the ir amen ded c omp laint that s ew age ba cked u p in to thei r basementbecause ci ty worker s did no t res pond t o the pow er outage in a timely ma nner. Granite Ci ty' s former

superi ntendent

of streets testi fiedthat i t took them more t

han two or three hou rs to insta ll the by pass p ump at the T errace Lane lift s tati on , b ut G ra ni te C it y's superi ntendent

of streets at

the ti me of the hearing testifi ed that i t shoul d tak e no long er than 15 minutes to arrive at the stati on with the bypass pum p and no lo nger tha n 15 minu tes to install the bypass pump. He stat ed that it s hould nev er take more than tw o hours fo r a stre et
crew to arrive at a lif

t st ation f

ollowinga power outag e. In addi tion, there i s evi dence that the clay pi pe us e d as th e sew er main servicing the Trtanjs' home a llow ed ou tside w ater to infiltrate the sewer mai n and that this infi ltr ationdimini shed the sew er main 's capacity to hand le sewage fl ow. There is ev idence that Granite City knew of the out si de wa ter infi ltr ationand knew this infiltrati on diminishe d the capa city of the sew er system. W e belie ve that the se fact s, const rued strictly ag ainst

Granite Ci ty and liberall y in fav or of the plaintif fs, establ ish mat erialissues of fact that would precl ude a summ ary jud gment. Genuine issues of materi al fact exis t concerni ng whether Grani te City's acts or omissio ns in the o per ation and main tena nce of its sew age s yste m ca use d th e da mage to the Trt anjs'real and personalproperty. In its motion for a summ ary jud gment, Granite Ci ty arg ued three grounds for g ranti ng
a judgment

in it s fav or: ( 1) that

the plainti ffs'acti on was barred by the 10- year st atute of6

repo se (735 ILCS 5/13 -214 (b) (W est 20 06)), (2 ) that G ranite C ity w as en titled to discre tionary immu nity under the Local G overnmental an d Go vernmental Em ployees T ort Immuni ty Act

(745 IL CS 10/2-201 ( West 2006)), and ( 3) that Gra nite C ity w as en titled to
a sum mar y ju dgm ent b eca use the r ains torm on t he n igh t o f the i ncident was an "extr aordinary" rainstorm. The circuit court granted G ranite City's motion for a sum mary judgment

but did no t specify on w hat grounds it base d its decision. We have c onsid ered a ll three grounds set out

in Granite City' s moti on fora summa ry judgment and find t

hat the tri al
cou rt erre d in its su mm ary jud gmen t rulin g. Statute of Repose Section 13-214(b) of

the Code of Civ il Pr ocedure, al so known as the stat ute of repose, states in p ertinen t part:

"No acti on based on tort, contrac t[,] or otherwise may be broug ht ag ainst any person for an act

or omiss ion of suc h per son in the desig n, planni ng, supe rvi sion, observ ationor manage ment of cons truction, or construction of an improv ement t o real prop erty after

10 years hav e elaps ed f rom the time of s uch act or omissi on." 735 ILCS 5/13-214 (b) (W est 2006). "[A] stat ute of r ep ose diffe rs fr om a stat ute of l imit ations in that a stat ute of limi tati ons gov erns the time within which lawsuits may be commen ced after a cause of acti on has accrued, w hile a statute of repose extinguishes the action itself aft er a fix ed period of time, regardless of

when the action accrued." DeLuna v. Burciaga , 223 Ill. 2d 49, 61 (2006). To determi ne wh ether a party is protec ted by section 13-2 14(b ), it is nece ssary to determi ne whether the party cl aimingprotect ion under t

he stat ute eng aged i n acti vit

ies t hat
are enume rated in the statute. Krueg er v. A.P. Green Refractories Co. , 283 I ll. App. 3d 300, 303 (1996). It is not enoug h that t he party s eeki ng the protect ion of t he stat ute is a la ndow ner. Prochnowv. El Pas o Golf Club, I nc. , 253 Ill. App. 3d 3 87, 394 (1993). A7

landowner is only protected by the st atute if he or she engages in t

he enumerated activit

ies. Prochnow , 253 I ll . App. 3d at394. The p lai n lan guag e of t he st atute bars only t

hose c lai ms relat ing to speci fied ac tiv iti es rel ated t o the const ructi on of an impro vemen t to real property. MBA Enterpri ses, I

nc. v. Nort

hern Il linoi s Gas Co. , 307 Ill. App. 3d 2 85, 288 (1999). In the present case, the plai ntiffs' amended complai nt contains certain all egations that fall within t

he purvi ew of

the desi gn, i nstal lati on, and const ructi on of the s ewer syste m and liftstation. Para graphs 12(e), 12( g), 12(h), 25( e), 25(g ), and 25(h) of the amended complai nt make alle gations i nvolv ing t he constr uction, desig n, and inst allation of the sewer s ystem or liftstation. The rec ord establ ishes t hat the sewer syst em and li ft st ation were desig ned and constructed more than 1 0 yea rs prior to the filing of the law suit . The refor e, we find t hat these allegation s are b arred u nder the 10 -year s tatute of repose , and w e a ff ir m th e t ri al co ur t's
a ward of a summary judgment with regard t o the theories of l iabili ty contained in those paragraphs. How ever, the remaining allegations are not based on t he constr uction, inst allation, or des ign of Granit e City' s sewer system or the Terr ace Lane li ft st ation, and the trialcourt er red in gran ting a summary judg ment with respectto thos e theo ries of liab ility und er the s tatute of repo se. T hese remain ing claims allege ac ts or om issions by G ranite C ity in its operati on and mainte nance of the sewer syst em and li ft st ation after their construction. The express langu age of the s tatute of repos e does not protect Grani te City agai nst the negl ige nt mainte nance or negl ige nt operat ion of t he sewer syst em or li ft st ation a fter their construction. See Ga vin v. C it

y of Ch icago , 238 I ll. App. 3d 518, 521 (1992) (in appl ying s ecti on 13- 214(b) to the plaintiff' s alleg ations, the court noted, "Plai ntif

f' s all egations concern only the C it y's impro per d esign of th e traffic li ght fixture, not it s fai lure to properl y mainta in the fixture"); see also Bailey v. Allst ate Development

Corp. , 316 I ll. App. 3d 949, 960-61 ( 2000) (maintenance or repai r acti vit y is not within t he scope of cons truction-r elat ed ac tivit ies8

contemp lated by the legislature in section 1 3-214). We agree with Pro chno w v . ElPaso Golf Cl ub, Inc. , 253 I ll. App. 3d 387, 394 (1993) (quoti ng Peop le ex rel. Skinner v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc ., 135 I ll. App. 3d 765, 772 (1985), rev'd on other gr ounds , 114 I ll. 2d 252 (1986)), where the court st ated as follows:

" 'It is clear * ** th at the im mun ities granted by th e pres ent statu te are limited to those persons who have engaged in the design, planni ng, su p ervi sion, obs ervat ion or managem ent of constructi on[,] or construction of

the impr ovement [,] and a ll ot her persons, ow ners, te nants , perso ns in possessi on or contr ol[,] and suppli ers of materi al
are sti ll exc luded from t he ben efits of th e statute althou gh they may be ex pose d to li ab il it y b y r ea so n o f c on st ru ct io n d ef ec ts .' " The stat ute of repose prot ects onl y those who engag e in the e numerated a ctiv iti es p rotected by the st atute : " ' desig n, planni ng, supe rvi sion, obs ervat ion or manag ement of
co ns tr uc ti on , o r c on st ru ct io n. ' " Pe ople e x r el . S ki nne r v . He ll muth, Oba ta & Ka ss aba um, Inc ., 114 Ill. 2d 252 , 263 (198 6) (qu oting Ill. Rev. Sta t. 1983, ch. 110, par. 13-214(a) ). The statute separ ates out c onstruction a cti vi ti es from o th er activi ties , and only t he enumerat ed
co n struc tion activities fallwithin the statute's protection. State Fa rm M utua l Auto mo bile Insurance Co. v. W.R. Grac e & Co ., 834 F. S upp. 1052, 1058 (C.D . Ill. 1993), aff'd , 24 F.3d 955 (7th C ir. 1994). W ith the exception of par agraphs 12(e), 12( g), 12(h), 25( e), 25(g ), and 25 (h ) mentione d above, the pla inti ffs'alle gations of Grani te City's acts or omissi ons in the amended complai nt do not pl ace Granit e City as one engag ed in the enumerate d acti vit ies protected by the prov isi ons of the stat ute of repose. S ee Prochnowv. El Pas o Golf Club , Inc. , 253 Il l. App. 3d387, 39 4 (1993 ). Accordingly, G ranite City is not entitled to sum mary judgment

reli ef under t

he stat ute of repose with respect to those t heories of li abili ty.9 Disc retiona ry Immu nity "Unless an immunity provisi on applies, munic ipal ities are l iabl e in tort to the same extent as private parties." Murr ay v . Ch ic ago Yo uth Ce nt er , 224 Ill. 2d 213, 2 29 (200 7). Gra nite City' s moti on for a s ummary j udgm ent argu ed tha t Gra nite C ity w as en titled to discretionary immunity pu rsuant to section 2 -201 of the Lo cal G overnment al and Go vernme ntal E mplo yees Tort Imm unity Act (t he Act) ( 745 ILCS 10/2-201 (W est 2006)). The Act is strictly construed against the pu blic entity seeking immunity. Hanley v. City of Chicago , 343 Ill. App. 3d 4 9, 56 (20 03). Sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Act (745 I LCS 10/2- 109, 2-201 (West 2006) ) gr ant immu nity to publi c enti ties forthe perf ormance of di scretionary f unctions . Section 2-109 of the Act states:

"A local public e ntit

y is not liabl e for an i njury r esulting f rom an act or omissi on of it s employee where t he employee i s not l iable
. " 7 45 IL CS 10/2-109 (W est 2006). Section 2-201 of the Act st ates: "Exceptas otherwise prov ide d by Stat ute, a publ ic empl oyee serv ing i n a position invol vingthe det er minati on o f poli cy or the e xercis e of dis creti on is not li able f or an inj ury resul tingfrom hi s act or omissi on in dete rmini ng poli cy when acti ng in the e xercis e of such di scretion ev en thoug h abused. " 745 IL CS 10/2-201 (W est 2006). In assess ing di scretionary i mmunity under section 2-20 1 of th e Act, the suprem e court has held, " 'A municipa l corpor ation a cts j udicia lly or exerci ses dis creti on when it s elect s and adop ts a plan i n the making of public i mprovement s, but as soon as it begi ns to car

ry outthat plan[,] it ac ts mi nist erial ly and is bound to see t hat the work is done in a re asonably s afe and ski llf ul m an ne r. ' " Gre ene v . City of Chicago , 73 Ill. 2d 1 00, 108 (19 78) (qu otin g Johnston10

v. City of East Moline , 405 I ll. 460, 466 (19 50)). In or der to be e ntitled to i mmunity under secti on 2-201 o f th e Act , Grani te Ci ty mus t sh ow that it s act or omi ssion was b oth an exercise of disc reti on and a poli cy determinati on, as opposedto being ministerial. Van Meter v. Darien Par

k Distri ct , 207 Ill. 2d 359, 3 72 (200 3). The term "p olicy," wh en us ed in re lation to the deci sions of a publi c enti ty, has be en defined a s " ' those deci sions which require the muni cipal ity to balance compet ing interests and to make a judg me nt ca ll as to w ha t s ol ut io n w il l b es t s er ve ea ch of th os e i nt er es ts .' " Harinekv. 16 1 N orth C lark S treet Ltd . Partn ership , 181 I ll. 2d 335, 342 (1998) ( quoting West v. Kirkham , 147 Ill. 2d 1, 11 ( 1992)). Dis creti onary act s inv olve the exer cise of personaldelibe rati on and judg ment in de cidingwhether to pe rform a parti cular a ct or how and in what manner

that act should b e performed
. Wrobel v. City of Chicago , 318 I ll. App. 3d 390 , 394-95 (2000). In contrast to di scretionary acts , a localpublic e ntit y is not immune from l iabil ity f or the performance of ministeri al task s. Morrissey v. City of Chicago , 334 Ill. App. 3d 251, 257 (2002). Min isterial acts "are those wh ich a person perform s on a gi ven state of fact s in a prescribed manner, i n obedience t o the mandat e of leg al authority, and without refer ence to the offici al' s discreti on as to the propriety of t he act." Wrobel , 318 I ll. App. 3d at 396. In Snyd er v. C urra n To wnship , 167 I ll. 2d 466, 474 (1995) , th e supr eme court s tate d: "[D]is creti onary act s are those which are uniq ue to a particu lar pu blic offi ce , wh ile ministe rial acts are those which a person performs on a g ive n state of fact s in a prescri bedma nner , in ob edien ce to th e m and ate of le gal a utho rit y , and wit hout refer ence to th e o ff ic ia l's discre tion as to the propriety o f the act." (Emp hasis adde d.) According ly, in the p resen t case, in orde r to dete rmine wh ether G ranite City is entitled to immuni ty under s ecti on 2-201 of the Act , we must cl assif y the al leg ed acts or

omissi ons of Granite Ci ty as ei ther di scretion ary or minist erial . "The clas sifi cati on of acts as eit her11

discretionary or mini sterial e scape [ sic ] any precise formul ation and must be made on a caseby-case basis i n lig ht of t he parti cular

facts and circumstances presented." Wrobel , 318 Ill. App. 3d at 396. " '

"It wou ld be d ifficult to concei ve of any of fici al act *** that di d not adm it o f some d iscr etion i n the manner of its performance, ev en if i t inv olve d only the driv ing of a nail." '" Snyder , 167 Il l. 2d at 474 (quoti ng W. Prosser, Torts §132, at 988-90 (4th ed. 197 1) (q uot ing Ham v. County of Los Angeles , 46 Cal. App. 148, 162, 189 P. 462, 468 (19 20))). Co nstrui ng the Act

stri ctly a gai nst Grani te City, we find that Granite City i s not entitled to a

summary judg ment under section 2-201 of the Act . There are materi al issues of fact c oncerningwhether Granite City timely hooked up a bypass pump t o the Terr ace Lane liftstation a nd w hethe r Gra nite C ity's acts or o mission s in ho okin g up the b ypass pump resul ted in a back

up of sewage into the Trt anjs'basement. The acts or omissi ons that

might have occu rred during t he process of hooki ng up the bypass pump were mini sterial, not discr etionary. Once the al arm sounded to al er t G ra ni te C it y's stree t dep artm ent o f the pow er o utage at the T errace Lane lift sta tion, G ranite C ity's str eet w orke rs had no discretion; they w ere required to follow the prescri bed procedures f or h ooki ng up the bypass pump. In ot her words, in hooki ng up the bypass pump, Grani te City's employees were actin g "on a g ive n state of fact s in a pr escri bed manner, i n obedience t o the manda te of l egal authori ty, and with out ref erenc e to the official's disc retion a s to the propriety of the act" ( Snyder , 167 Ill. 2d at 474 ). In additi on, we find Snyd er v. C urra n To wnship , 167 Ill. 2d 466 (1995), i nstruc tiv e. In Snyder , the suprem e court held tha t a t ow nship 's duty to p lace a w arning sign in conf ormity with the law was a m inisterial duty. Snyder , 167 Il l. 2d at 474. The court noted that the pla c ement of warning signs was subject t o statutory and regul atory guideli nes.12

Snyder , 167 Il l. 2d at

474. The court s tate d, "[T]he dut ies of the def

endantare mo re pro perly charact erize d as mini sterial t han discretionary, for

the duti es are perf

ormed under a g ive n set of facts in a prescribed manner." Snyder , 167 I ll. 2d at 474. Simi larto Snyder , in the present ca se, a mun icipality's operation of a sewage system is subject to st atutory and regulatory guidelines. The Il linoi s leg isl ature ha s given auth ority to the Poll ution Control Board, a div isi on of the Il linoi s Envir onmental Protection Age ncy, to adopt regul ations regarding the manag ement of wastewater, and c omplianc e is mandatory. 415 IL CS 5/12(a) , 13(a)( 3) (West 2006). The regul ations of the Pollution ControlBoard at the time of

the power outa ge st ated, " Where part or al l of t he engi ne-dri ven pum ping equipment

is port able, s uffi cient stora ge capaci ty shal l be prov ided to all ow time for detection of pump station failure and transp ortation and h ookup of the portable equ ipment." 35 Ill. Adm. C ode § 370 .450 (d)(2)(C ), ame nded at 21 Ill. Reg. 12444 (ef f. Aug ust 28, 1997). The Pollution C ontrol Bo ard's regulations also state, "Overflow s from sanitary sew ers are expr essly prohibi ted." 35 Ill. Adm. Code §306.304 (1996). There is e vide nce that an overflow occurred in the present case i n violation of these provi sions. Following the rea soning in Snyder , we find tha t th e plai ntif fs'alle gations i n the
ame nde d co mp laint invo lve minis teri al act s and omiss ions. " Where, as in t he inst ant case , tail ored statutory and reg ulatory guidel ines p lace c ertai n constr aints on the deci sions of official s, a cou rt shou ld be re luctan t to labe l decisio ns falling w holly outsi de the est ablis hed parameters as ' discreti onary.' " Snyder , 167 I ll. 2d at 474. Gra nite City had a duty not to d ischar ge sew age from its sew er syste m on to private property. See Porte r v. Urbana-Champaign Sanit ary Distr ict , 237 Ill. App. 3d 296, 300 (1992). There is e vide nce in the record t hat sewage backed up in to the T rtanjs' base men t. T here is ev idence of

record creati ng a fac tual i ssue rel ated t o Granite Ci ty' s ti meline s s i n hookingup the bypass pump after the power outage . There is evi dence in the record t hat the13

sewer main and l ift

station servic ing t

he Trtanj s' home lacked suffi cient capacity to all ow for the hookup of a bypass pump becau se the sewer mai n allowed i nfil tration of outside storm water which decreas ed the mai n's capacity to handle sewage fl ow. There is ev idenc e o f record that G ranite City had knowled ge of the storm w ater infiltration. There are materi al issues of fact

concerni ng whether

Gra nite C ity com plied w ith th e P ol lu ti on C on tr ol B oa rd 's regul ations described a bove. Th ese issues are forthe jur y to deci de. See Snyder , 167 I ll. 2d at 472 ("the issue of compli ance or noncompl iance with the I lli nois Manual was a question prop erly before t

he jury" ). Whetherthe dam ages su ffered by th e Trta njs w ere pro ximate ly caused by Granite City' s mini sterial a cts or omissi ons in the operati on and maint enance of its sewer system should b e decided by a fact finde r, not a motion c ourt. Gra nite Ci ty argues that its fai lure to maintai n property could be described as a n
e xercise of discre tion. W e do n ot belie ve that the legislature in tende d suc h a res ult; othe rwis e, it would not have codi fied t

he common law duty t o mainta in property under secti on 3-102 of the Act and would not have codi fied t

he common law liability for the use of property that i s not re asonably s afe under s ecti on 3-103(a) of the Act . See Corning v. East Oa kland Towns hip , 283 I ll. App. 3d 765, 768 -6 9 ( 199 6) ; 7 45 ILCS 10/3-102, 3- 103(a) (West 2006); se e al so S nyder , 167 Ill. 2d at 475-7 6 ("Ou r conclusion that discretionary immu nity does not ins ulate d efend ant fro m liability in the i nstant case is further butt

ressed by [section 3 -103(a)] in the Immu nity Act"). Once a mu nicipa lity dec ides to perform a public work, the municipality mu st perform the public w ork with reason able care an d in a non negligent manner. Snyder , 167 I ll. 2d at 474-75; se e also In re Chicago Flood Li tigat ion , 176 I ll. 2d 179, 194 (1997) ( " ' as soon as [a mun icipal co rpora tion] be gins to carry out [its sew er] plan , it acts min isterially[] a nd is bound to see t

hat the work is done in a reasonabl y safe and s kil lfulman ner ' " (quo ting City of Chicago v. Seben , 165 I ll. 371, 378 (1897)) ). Constr uing t he fact s of rec ord and the Ac t14

strictly against Gra nite City, w e find that G ranite City is not entitled to discretion ary immu nity und er sectio n 2-2 01 o f the Ac t for the a cts and omissio ns allege d in the plaintif fs' amended com plaint. T o con clude , as G ranite C ity argue s, that it s act s or o mi ssions w ere discretionary wou ld result in an imperm issibly expansive de finition of discretionary immunity. Extra ordin ary R ainfall Fina lly, Gra nite C ity argue d in its m otion fo r a sum mary judgme nt that it was no t liable as a m atter of la w b ecau se the r ainfall o n th e night of the s ewage backup was extraordinary. However, we agre e with the plaint iff s that the ext ent of t

he rainf all on t he day of the sewage backup is not a f act of re cord prop erly bef ore the c our t by wa y of a ple adin g, deposition, admissi on, or aff idav it. See Cato v. Thompson , 83 Ill. App. 3d 321, 32 4 (1980 ). There are mate rialissues of fact for th e jury to resolve c once rning the exten t of the ra infall at th e t im e o f t he in ci de nt , t he ex te nt th at ra in fa ll im pa ct ed th e a bi li ty of G ra ni te C it y's
se wa ge system to handle sewag e flow, and whether Granite Ci ty compli ed with sewag e systemregul ations . Accordi ngly, a summary j udgment was inappropriate under any theo ry based on the nature or

amount of r ainfal l on the ni ght of the sewage backup. CONCL USI ON For the for egoi ng reas ons, we affi rm in part and rever se in part the orde r of the circuit court of M adiso n C oun ty granting Granite City's motion for a summary ju dg me nt , a nd w e remand for further proceedings
.

Affi rmed in part and rev ersed i n part; cause remande d.

CH APM AN a nd D ON OV AN, JJ., c oncur.NO. 5-07-0002 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ ALBER T TR TANJ an d MA RY T RTAN J, ) Appeal f rom the fo r t he Use of

ST ATE FAR M FI RE AN D ) Circui t Court of CAS UAL TY COMPA NY, ) Madison County. ) Plaintif

fs-Appellants , ) ) v. ) No. 02-L- 958 ) THE CITY OF GRA NI TE CITY, ) Ho nora ble ) D anie l J. Sta ck, Defendant-Appe llee
. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Rule 2 3 O rder F iled: February 15, 2008 M otion to Publish Gra nted: March 24, 2008 Opini on Fi led : March 24, 2008

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable B ruce D. Stewart, P.J.

Honorable Meliss a A. Chapman, J., and Hon orable Jame s K. D onovan, J., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys John P. Cunningham, Daniel G. Hasenst ab, Brown & James, P.C., Ri chland Pla za for I, 525 West Main, Bellev ill e, I L 62220-1547 Appellants

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys Ronald A. Roth, Dawn KamadulskiO'Lear y, Roth, Evans & Lading , P.C., 2421 for Corporate Cent re Driv e, Sui te 200, Grani te City, I L 62040 Appell ee

___________________________________________________________________________________