Because our determination of the first issue is dispositive, we do not reach plaintiff's second contention. On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, the function of the reviewing court is to determine whether the trial court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that judgment was correct as a matter of law. 256 Ill. App. The reviewing court will consider all grounds urged and facts revealed in the trial court when determining the propriety of the entry of summary judgment. Summary judgment should not be granted unless it is clear that the moving party is truly entitled to it.
Orders granting summary judgment are subject to de novo review.
The essential issue on appeal is whether the Tort Immunity Act bars plaintiff's action. It is well-established that the Tort Immunity Act imposes a duty of care upon municipalities to maintain property only for uses that are both permitted and intended. Accordingly, in order to maintain his action against the City of Peoria, plaintiff bicyclist must qualify as both a permitted and an intended user of the sidewalk. In Boub, the plaintiff was injured as he was riding his bicycle across a one-lane bridge in rural Wayne Township. To determine whether the plaintiff cyclist was an intended user of the road and bridge, the court looked at pavement markings, signs, and other physical manifestations of the intended use of the property and found no special pavement markings or signs indicating that bicyclists were intended to ride on the road or bridge.