The trial court erred in denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The record in the instant case establishes that emergency city vehicles used the medians as and when necessary to get around traffic. Therefore, the use of the median in the case at bar by the emergency vehicle was both permissible and, based on the record in this case, foreseeable. Although vehicles are permitted to use the medians, the City does contend that it has no duty to maintain or make improvements to the medians in a manner that prevents a dangerous condition to any vehicles that use the median. The majority, on appeal, adopts the City's contention.
Liability arises when the undertaken improvement itself creates an unreasonably dangerous condition.
168 Ill. App. However, DiBenedetto is distinguishable from the present case. The plaintiff maintained that the drainage ditch alongside the road was not safe for vehicular traffic and sought to hold the township liable for its failure to make the drainage ditch safe for vehicular traffic. 153 Ill. 2d at 70. The supreme court found that the accident was not of the type that could have been expected under normal driving circumstances, and held that there was no duty to make the drainage ditch safe for vehicular travel.