Tzakis v. Me. Twp.
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 125017 |
| Citation | 2020 IL 125017,450 Ill.Dec. 460,181 N.E.3d 812 |
| Parties | Dennis TZAKIS et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. MAINE TOWNSHIP et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Benjamin M. Jacobi, of O'Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook, LLC, of Northbrook, and Howard C. Jablecki, of Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd., and Susan T. Morakalis, Ellen M. Avery, Jorge T. Mihalopoulos, and Anastasios T. Foukas, of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, both of Chicago, for appellants.
Timothy H. Okal, of Spina McGuire & Okal, P.C., of Elmwood Park, for appellees.
¶ 1 The primary issue we are asked to address is whether our decision in Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District , 2016 IL 117952, 399 Ill.Dec. 422, 46 N.E.3d 741, abolishing the common-law public duty rule, applies retroactively to this case. The circuit court of Cook County dismissed plaintiff property owners' "amended fifth amended complaint" (hereinafter the sixth amended complaint) against defendant local public entities. The circuit court found that the public duty rule applied to all of defendants' alleged conduct and the new law set forth in Coleman applied only prospectively here. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court. 2019 IL App (1st) 170859, ¶ 107, 436 Ill.Dec. 185, 142 N.E.3d 288. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 3 This appeal arises from a lawsuit initially filed by plaintiffs on February 11, 2009, concerning flood damage to their property in the Robin-Dee community area of Maine Township after heavy rains on September 13, 2008.1 Plaintiffs filed suit against several local public entities including the three defendants in this appeal—Maine Township, the City of Park Ridge (Park Ridge), and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (District). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached a variety of duties owed to them with respect to a stormwater drainage system located near their properties.
¶ 4 On January 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.2 Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, in coordination with private partners, developed the Prairie Creek Stormwater System (PCSS). According to the complaint, the PCSS is a stormwater system consisting of the central main drain that runs through the Robin-Dee neighborhood; retention/detention basins for stormwater storage including three basins, along with the tributary stormwater sewers that feed the basins; and the tributary stormwater sewers "under the streets collect[ing] street stormwater runoff which then drain[s] to the [m]ain [d]rain or its storage components." Defendants were allegedly involved in approving the drainage and sewer systems as far back as the 1960s.
¶ 5 Advocate Health and Hospital Corporation (Advocate) operates a hospital adjacent to plaintiffs' neighborhood. In 1976, Advocate submitted a development plan to Park Ridge that proposed modifications to Advocate's drainage system. It was further alleged that Park Ridge approved the proposal and that Advocate's alterations from the 1976 routing of the main drain resulted in increased water flow into the Robin-Dee community.
¶ 6 In 1987, plaintiffs' neighborhood experienced significant flooding. In response, Maine Township, Park Ridge, and the City of Glenview, "along with other entities," commissioned Harza Engineering Services (Harza) to investigate. In 1990, Harza issued a report, which identified maintenance and design defects in the PCSS that allegedly posed the risk of future flooding. Specifically, Harza identified design and maintenance defects in Advocate's drainage system, including the portions adjacent to plaintiffs' property. The report indicated that the defects impaired the system's drainage capacity in certain areas to a level substantially below any reasonably safe standard for the collection, transportation, and discharge of stormwater within the PCSS.
¶ 7 At some point between 1987 and 2002, Advocate hired the engineering firm Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. (Gewalt), to draft and implement a development plan for property contiguous to the hospital. This development included modifications to the drainage system and the topography of the property itself. Park Ridge and the District issued permits related to this development of Advocate's property.
¶ 8 In August 2002, a rainstorm again caused major flooding to the Robin-Dee neighborhood. Stormwater accumulated within Advocate's drainage system. Plaintiffs alleged that the system's discharge component was undersized, which caused water to build up and overflow from the system, causing the flooding.
¶ 9 After the 2002 event, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources conducted a study that discovered "numerous bottleneck and obstructions to flow as the causes of the invasive flooding" in the Robin-Dee community. The study provided recommendations that could be made to reduce future flooding. Thereafter, Advocate and Gewalt submitted plans to modify the drainage system at the hospital, which were approved by Park Ridge and the District. Plaintiffs alleged that the plans to modify did not address the three undersized components of Advocate's drainage system. Additionally, the plan allegedly did not remedy certain bottlenecks that led to an insufficient means to drain water from Advocate's property.
¶ 10 On September 13, 2008, stormwater overflowed the retention basins on Advocate's property, causing flooding to plaintiffs' property and leading to the damages that they seek to recover in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged that culverts intended to discharge water from the basins were insufficient because the discharge from the basins bottlenecked. Once the bottleneck reached capacity and the basins filled, water discharged over the top of the basins onto Advocate's property and then flooded plaintiffs' property below. Plaintiffs alleged that the stormwater drains were insufficient to drain water from the streets into the PCSS. They further alleged that defendants controlled the Prairie Creek main drain and its various segments as well as the property for stormwater management.
¶ 11 Concerning Maine Township, plaintiffs alleged that it was responsible for stormwater management within the jurisdiction, which included plaintiffs' neighborhood, and it had supervised all stormwater projects. Additionally, Maine Township "owned[,] possessed and/or controlled" the portions of the PCSS within its jurisdiction. Plaintiffs alleged that Maine Township had mobilized trucks for sand delivery to their neighborhood in anticipation of the flooding event that occurred on September 13, 2008. Maine Township had also provided sandbags on prior occasions when there had been flooding.
¶ 12 Concerning Park Ridge, plaintiffs alleged that the city had owned, controlled, planned, and designed the public improvements to the PCSS within its jurisdiction. The city allegedly had the most actual knowledge of Advocate flooding among the local public entities and was in the best position to make changes to the Advocate-Gewalt plans given the serious repetitive flooding history. Plaintiffs alleged that "Park Ridge did not compel Advocate[ ] to revise their North and South Development Plan to provide more stormwater storage." Plaintiffs further alleged that Park Ridge was aware of the repetitive invasive flooding to the Robin-Dee community because it had deployed police and public safety personnel to the area during flooding events.
¶ 13 Concerning the District, plaintiffs alleged that it was the regional local public entity charged with operation of stormwater management across jurisdictions and that it "own[ed] and/or control[led] all drains, basins, structures, components and other stormwater improvements" within the PCSS system. Despite having knowledge of design and maintenance defects within the PCSS, the District allegedly did not take "corrective measures to remedy and/or protect the plaintiffs against the foreseeable dangerous conditions existing on its PCSS properties posed by excess stormwater." Plaintiffs further alleged that the District approved plans from Advocate relating to Advocate's design of PCSS components on its property.
¶ 14 In the complaint, plaintiffs brought the following counts against each of the three defendants before us: (1) "negligence: dominant estate overburdening stormwater," premised on allegations that defendants knew or should have known of the foreseeable harm of invasive flooding into plaintiffs' neighborhood due to the history of flooding and that they owed nondelegable duties to manage properly the stormwater so as to prevent harm to plaintiffs from excess stormwater overburdening the drainage system; (2) "negligent nuisance," premised on allegations that defendants negligently caused an accumulation of water from the drainage system to invade and interfere with plaintiffs' property; (3) "negligent trespass," premised on allegations that water invaded plaintiffs' property due to defendants' failure to properly manage the stormwater systems; (4) "statutory duty to maintain property," premised on allegations that defendants failed to exercise ordinary care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition as required by section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act; (5) "duty to remedy [a] dangerous plan," premised on allegations that defendants had a duty to compel Advocate to redesign its drainage plans under section 3-103 of the Tort Immunity Act, which set forth a duty for a local public entity to correct known unsafe conditions related to the design and/or engineering of an approved plan; and (6) "taking real and personal property," premised on allegations that defendants' conduct constituted a taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial