HB2916 amends the Illinois Snow and Ice Removal Act to expand who is protected from liability when clearing snow or ice from sidewalks and parking areas. Under current law, the Act encourages residential property owners and businesses to remove snow and ice by limiting liability for ordinary efforts; this bill specifically adds a person in charge of any business who attempts to remove snow or ice from areas abutting the business to the list of protected parties.
The bill also tightens the liability standard by stating that a protected person is not liable unless the snow or ice removal was done in a willful or wanton manner. In addition, it authorizes a court to award attorney’s fees to a defendant covered by the Act if the lawsuit is found to be frivolous. The practical effect is to provide broader legal protection and a stronger deterrent against claims arising from good-faith snow and ice removal efforts by businesses and those responsible for them.
Impact
HB2916 would amend Sections 1 and 2 of the Snow and Ice Removal Act (745 ILCS 75/1 and 75/2). It broadens statutory immunity to include a person in charge of a business who attempts to remove snow or ice from adjacent sidewalks and parking areas, and it reinforces that liability attaches only for willful or wanton conduct. The bill would also create a fee-shifting mechanism allowing attorney’s fees for protected defendants when a claim is frivolous, affecting civil liability exposure for businesses, property managers, and others involved in winter maintenance.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill’s purpose, though no committee transcript or vote record is provided. The bill’s stated policy goal is to encourage snow and ice removal by reducing the risk of lawsuits, which typically appeals to business owners and property operators concerned about liability. Because there are no recorded votes or hearing remarks in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill text itself.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between encouraging prompt snow and ice removal and limiting injured parties’ ability to recover damages. Supporters would likely view the bill as a commonsense liability shield for businesses and their agents, especially where removal efforts are made in good faith. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on the expanded immunity and the attorney-fee provision, arguing that they could make it harder for injured pedestrians or motorists to bring claims even when negligent snow removal contributes to harm. No specific objections are recorded in the provided materials.
Establishing the Snow and Ice Removal Safety Grant Program and the Snow and Ice Removal Safety Grant Program Account; and imposing duties on the Department of Transportation.