Berry v. City of Chicago
2020 IL 124999 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois law, a negligence claim requires a present injury, and an increased risk of future harm is not a cognizable injury in itself. Similarly, an inverse condemnation claim requires an allegation of actual, measurable pecuniary loss or depreciation in property value, not merely an allegation that the property has been made more dangerous.
Facts:
- The City of Chicago's water system included lead service lines for approximately 80% of its residences.
- To mitigate lead leaching, the City treated its water with a chemical that formed a protective coating inside the lead pipes.
- Starting in 2008, the City began a large-scale project to replace old water mains and meters.
- This construction work could disturb the protective pipe coating and, in cases of partial pipe replacement with dissimilar metals, cause galvanic corrosion, increasing the risk of lead leaching into residents' water.
- Plaintiff Gordon Berry's water meter was replaced by the City in 2009. In 2016, tests of his home's water revealed lead levels exceeding the EPA's action level, and his two-year-old granddaughter was found to have elevated lead levels in her blood.
- Plaintiff Ilya Peysin's water main was replaced by the City in 2015. Subsequent private testing of his water showed a 'Significant' lead level.
- Neither named plaintiff alleged that they or any current member of their household was suffering from any physical impairment or dysfunction caused by the ingestion of lead-contaminated water.
Procedural Posture:
- Gordon Berry and Ilya Peysin filed a two-count amended class-action complaint against the City of Chicago in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- The City of Chicago filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The circuit court granted the City's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, with the City of Chicago as the appellee.
- A majority of the appellate court reversed the circuit court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The City of Chicago (as appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, with the plaintiffs as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint state a valid cause of action for negligence and inverse condemnation by alleging that a city's water main replacement program created an increased risk of lead exposure and made residents' property 'more dangerous,' without alleging a present physical injury or a measurable decrease in property value?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Anne M. Burke
No, the complaint does not state a valid cause of action for either negligence or inverse condemnation. A claim for negligence requires a present injury, and Illinois law establishes that an increased risk of future harm is not, by itself, a cognizable injury. Plaintiffs' request for medical monitoring costs is derivative of their claim of increased risk and thus does not constitute a standalone injury. Similarly, an inverse condemnation claim requires a showing of actual, measurable damage to property. An allegation that property has been made 'more dangerous' is too speculative and remote to be compensable unless it is accompanied by an allegation that this danger has caused a specific, measurable depreciation in the property's market value, which was not pleaded here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional tort law requirement of a present, realized injury for negligence claims, preventing the expansion of tort liability to cases based solely on exposure or an increased risk of future harm. It solidifies the precedent from Williams v. Manchester, making it more difficult for plaintiffs in toxic tort and environmental cases to recover for medical monitoring without a concurrent physical injury. The ruling on inverse condemnation similarly raises the pleading standard, requiring plaintiffs to allege a concrete, measurable loss in property value rather than speculative harms like 'dangerousness,' thereby protecting public works projects from claims based on intangible or unquantifiable impacts.
