LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITIES AND EMPLOYEES
A. ACTIONS FOR INJURY AND CLAIMS AGAINST
1. Limitation on Actions
745 ILCS 10/8-101: Limitation of actions
Within 1 year from the date the cause of action accrued, a civil action must be filed against a local entity or its employees, except for causes of action arising out of patient care, which is set forth below. The one year limitations period of the Tort Immunity Act does not begin to run against a minor Plaintiff until his or her 18th birthday. McKinnon v. Thompson, 325 Ill. App. 3d 241 (2d Dist. 2001).
Because complaint challenging authority of village to impose impact fees in charge for building permits is one for unjust enrichment, seeking a refund, it is not subject to one-year limitations provision of Tort Immunity Act. Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 807 N.E.2d 439, 282 Ill. Dec. 815 (2004), affirming 335 Ill. App. 3d 317, 780 N.E.2d 773, 269 Ill. Dec. 301 (2d Dist. 2002). The one-year limitation period does not apply to constitutional claims or actions seeking injunctive relief. People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 325 Ill. App. 3d 196 (2d Dist. 2001). The Tort Immunity Act does not apply to contract claims, United Airlines v. City of Chicago 2011 IL App (1st) 102299, or to equitable claims, Birkett. However, claims for money damages for wrongful demolition under § 1-4-7 of the Municipal Code are expressly excluded from the Tort Immunity Act, therefore the one-year statute of limitations contained in § 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act does not apply to such a cause of action. Harvest Church of Our Lord v. City of East St. Louis, Illinois, 407 Ill. App. 3d 649, 943 N.E.2d 1230, 348 Ill. Dec. 320 (5th Dist. 2011); Ballinger v. City of Danville, 2012 IL App (4th) 110637; Madigan v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App (1st) 160195.
CAVEAT: These Guidelines are not a substitute for the statutory examination that is needed in considering a statute of limitations problem. We recommend such research. — Editors
A continuing violation may bring all claims within the limitations period. Wolf v. City of Chicago Heights, 828 F.Supp 520 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
One-year limitations period of Tort Immunity Act applies to complaint against animal control officer, in his individual capacity, alleging negligent operation of motor vehicle when he collided with plaintiff's vehicle while transporting stray animal to shelter. Sperandeo v. Zavitz 365 Ill. App. 3d 691, 850 N.E.2d 394, 302 Ill. Dec. 957 (2d Dist. 2006). A retaliatory discharge claim is based on the Workers' Compensation Act, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations set forth in § 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act does not apply. Collins v. Town of Normal, 2011 IL App (4th) 100694.
Because legislature intended the Tort Immunity Act to provide broad protection to munici-palities, limitations period of section 8-101 controls over four-year period of section 13-214 of Code of Civil Procedure and limits time for filing complaint for personal injuries sustained as result of construction site to one year. Paszkowski v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 1, 820 N.E.2d 401, 289 Ill. Dec. 625 (2004).
Because language of Contribution Act gives it priority, two-year limitations period contained in it, rather than 1-year period contained in Tort Immunity Act, applied to third party plaintiff, railroad's third party complaint against Metra, a municipal corporation, for contribution. Therefore, trial court erred when it dismissed it. Brooks v. Illinois Central RR Co., 364 Ill. App. 3d 120, 846 N.E.2d 931, 301 Ill. Dec. 328 (1st Dist. 2005).
Interstate Compact agencies are "local public entities" subject to the one-year limitations period of the Tort Immunity Act. Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency, 238 Ill. 2d 262, 938 N.E.2d 48, 345 Ill. Dec. 44 (2010).
The Chicago Zoological Society is not a "local public entity" and the Tort Immunity Act does not apply to it. O'Toole v. Chicago Zoological Society, 2015 IL 118254.
Ordinarily, the timely filing of a class action complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all putative plaintiffs. Where such an action was dismissed with one day left in the one-year limitations period of the Act, and 32 individual plaintiffs filed their suit on the same day, their claims were not barred by the limitations period of the Act. Mabry v. Village of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356.
2. Health Care Malpractice Against Units of Local Government
a) 735 ILCS 5/13-212: Physician or hospital
b) 745 ILCS 10/8-101: Limitation of actions
Pub. Act 93-0011, effective June 4, 2003, amends 745 ILCS 10/8-101, by adding the following:
(b) No action for damages for injury or death against any local public entity or public employee, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought more than 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought in the action, whichever of those dates occurs first, but in no event shall such an action be brought more than 4 years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in the action to have been the cause of the injury or death.
(c) For purposes of this Article, the term "civil action" includes any action, whether based upon the common law or statutes or Constitution of this State.
(d)The changes made by this amendatory Act of the 93rd General Assembly apply to an action or proceeding pending on or after this amendatory Act's effective date, unless those changes (i) take away or impair a vested right that was acquired under existing law or (ii) with regard to a past transaction or past consideration, create a new obligation, impose a new duty, or attach a new disability.
(Source: Pub. Act 84-1431.)
Because defendant-physician was an employee of county hospital, it having the ability to control his conduct, and because one-year statute of limitations pursuant to Tort Immunity Act had already expired at time statute was amended to provide for 2-year limitations period, defendant had vested right in expiration of limitations period, and complaint filed after expiration of one-year period was properly dismissed. Wheaton v. Suwana, 355 Ill. App. 3d 506, 823 N.E.2d 993, 291 Ill. Dec. 407 (5th Dist. 2005).
Plaintiff's claim against public hospital for sexual assault by a doctor was subject to the one-year period of section 8-101(a), not the two-year period of section 8-101(b), the court holding that the injury did not "arise out of patient care" so as to be within section 8-101(b). Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital 396 Ill. App. 3d 729, 919 N.E.2d 1077, 336 Ill. Dec. 152 (4th Dist. 2009). Case also holds that the language "arising out of patient care" in section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act would be interpreted in the same manner as the same language in section 13-212. This holding was affirmed by the supreme court in Kaufmann v. Schroeder, 241 Ill. 2d 194, 946...
