Opinion ID: 2144159
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Failure to Repair or Warn

Text: The trial court ruled that section 2-201 of the Act did not afford the City discretionary immunity for allegedly failing to promptly repair the tunnel or to warn class plaintiffs of the tunnel breach. The trial court noted class plaintiffs' allegations that the City did nothing to repair the tunnel or to warn class plaintiffs. The trial court reasoned that section 2-201 affords immunity only to the exercise of discretion and not for failing to act. The appellate court affirmed. The appellate court reasoned that it could not find the City immune under section 2-201 as a matter of law because the record lacked facts as to determinations regarding the decisions or omissions the City made. It must be ascertained what decisions were made, when they were made, by whom, and in what capacity. We disagree with the trial and appellate courts. Class plaintiffs do not allege that there was any prescribed method for how to repair the tunnel and how quickly, or how to warn class plaintiffs of the tunnel breach. Thus, the City's actions cannot be considered ministerial. See Seben, 165 Ill. at 378, 46 N.E. 244. On the contrary, as the City notes, the City had to make several decisions following its notice of the tunnel breach. Such decisions included who would repair the tunnel, i.e., Great Lakes, the City itself, or an independent contractor; if an independent contractor, then how would the contractor be hired and on what terms. As to the failure-to-warn claim, the City had to decide whether warning the public would cause panic and, if so, whether that warning was justified. All of these decisions were within the City's discretion, which is afforded immunity against liability.