Description
You are the firm's paralegal working on Ann C. Dorite's case. You have been asked by partner Rich N. Moore to write a law office memo on the case. In the memo you will summarize the partner's meeting on Ms. Dorite's case and discuss as appropriate the Illinois cases on the issue of the City's duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition. How do you keep the tone of the memo neutral and why? In addition, make a simple outline for the law office memo for the written assignment (which is uploaded below) and post in your discussion post. You do not need to have read the cases to do the outline. JUST DO AN OUTLINE!
Explanation & Answer
Halfway done. wprking on it.
Attached.
To: Rich N. Moore, Partner
Re: Ann c. Dorite v. City of Chicago.
Date: August 8, 2017
Issue
Whether Miss Ann can argue that the conditions of the injury she incurred on Sox St. amount to
negligence on the part of the city of Chicago.
Brief Answer
Miss. Ann can argue that the city has a duty to make the safe for pedestrians and that conditions
on a public street amount to a prima facie case of negligence under the Local Governmental and
Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Ann C. Dorite has adequate reason to file a
personal injury action alleging negligence against defendant, the City of Chicago. Miss. Ann is
seeking recovery for injuries caused as a result of stepping into a hole while walking to the back
of her car along Sox Street.
Facts
Miss. Ann is suing the City of Chicago over injuries she sustained from a fall she took on Sox St.
a few weeks ago. She broke her ankle when she fell in a hole in the street as she was walking to
the back of her packed car. She has subsequently incurred costs amounting to $30,000.
Rule of law
The Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3102) (from Ch. 85, par. 3-102) states that “
Sec. 3-102. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local public entity has the duty
to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the
exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in
a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used, and
shall not be liable for injury unless it is proven that it has actual or constructive notice of the
existence of such a condition that is not reasonably safe in reasonably adequate time prior to an
injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against such condition.
(b) A public entity does not have constructive notice of a condition of its property that is not
reasonably safe within the meaning of Section 3-102(a) if it establishes either:
(1) The existence of the condition and its character of not being reasonably safe would not
have been discovered by an inspection system that was reasonably adequate considering the
practicability and cost of inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the
potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise to inform the public entity whether
the property was safe for the use or uses for which the public entity used or intended others to
use the public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew others were making of
the public property or adjacent property; or
(2) The public entity maintained and operated such an inspection system with due care and did
not discover the condition. “
Analysis
The City of Chicago is being sued by Ann C. Dorite for injuries she sustained due to negligence
of a public street, Sox St., which resulted in her sustaining injuries which have resulted to high
medical bills. The hole in which Miss. Ann fell into was on a public street which should be
maintained by the City of Chicago. A court would question whether t...