In a cause of action alleging negligence, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach of that duty. 217 Ill. App. While the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to decide, the issues of breach and proximate cause are questions of fact for the jury, provided that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding those issues. The record demonstrates that the subject stretch of Highline Road had limited sight distance and no warning signs, road markings, or shoulder area. In essence, these allegations assail the District's failure to make improvements at the collision site, not its failure to properly maintain the area.
Improvement means a change for the better, while maintenance connotes preserving sameness.
This difference is fatal to these four allegations. The Tort Immunity Act creates no new duties but merely codifies those existing at common law. At common law, a municipality had a duty to maintain its property in a safe condition, but this duty did not extend to creating or erecting public improvements. Nor does it require the District to erect warning signs and install roadway markings. The record is simply devoid of any evidence to support plaintiff's claim that the District failed to inform its maintenance crew of the hazards to be addressed when maintaining a narrow, hill-crest road section.