Court Opinion

ID: 9742662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:17:34.360031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:34.596040
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: I am not certain the use of the word “initially” in section 3 — 104 of the Act was a legislative oversight. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 85, par. 3 — 104.) The word may be used to distinguish between the failure to initially provide a sign, for which there is immunity, and the failure to replace a damaged or stolen sign, for which there may be liability under the town’s duty to maintain its property. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 85, par. 3-102(a); West, 147 Ill. 2d at 13-14, 588 N.E.2d at 1110.) The argument that once the town initially provided a sign of some sort the immunity was waived was rejected in West. “The creative plaintiff, seeking to premise an action on the failure to provide a particular traffic device, could always circumvent section 3 — 104 by finding and pointing out some other traffic device that was provided.” (Emphasis in original.) West, 147 Ill. 2d at 10, 588 N.E.2d at 1108.