Senate Republicans List New State Laws – 7

A listing of all new laws scheduled to go into effect on January 1, continues.

Not all measures approved by the General Assembly go into effect on the first of the year. Bills which contain a specific effective date within the language of the measure and bills that carry an “immediate” effective date can go into effect at other times of the year.

However, January 1 is the default date for a new law to become effective if there is no specific language specifying when it will become effective.

Under the Illinois Constitution, the legislature must set a “uniform effective date” for laws passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year. That uniform effective date, which is January 1, applies if the legislation does not otherwise specify when the law becomes effective.

A listing of all new laws scheduled to go into effect on January 1, follows.

Not all measures approved by the General Assembly go into effect on the first of the year. Bills which contain a specific effective date within the language of the measure and bills that carry an “immediate” effective date can go into effect at other times of the year.

However, January 1 is the default date for a new law to become effective if there is no specific language specifying when it will become effective.

Under the Illinois Constitution, the legislature must set a “uniform effective date” for laws passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year. That uniform effective date, which is January 1, applies if the legislation does not otherwise specify when the law becomes effective.

Consumers

Condominium Agreements (SB 1606/PA 98-0282): Provides that once a developer turns over ownership to a condominium association, the condominium agreements can only be amended by a vote of two-thirds of condominium owners, unless a higher percentage is in the condominium agreement. However, the higher number could not exceed three-fourths of all owners.

Housing Cooperatives (HB 2527/PA 98-0302): Requires an open meeting and a vote of members prior to the dissolution of a residential housing cooperative.

No Indoor Tanning for Minors (HB 188/PA 98-0349): Prohibits a tanning facility from permitting any person younger than 18 to use tanning equipment that emits ultraviolet (UV) radiations. Provides for exemptions, such as devices used to apply chemicals to the skin to achieve a bronze color, known as a spray-on, mist-on, or sunless tan.

Community Manager Licensure (HB 595/PA 98-0365): Creates licensure for a “supervising community association manager.” Community associations are generally condominium, townhouse and homeowner associations.

Using a handheld cell phone outside one's car is OK.

Using a handheld cell phone outside one’s car is OK.

Cell Phone Ban (HB 1247/PA 98-0506): Bans the use of cell phones while driving. Exempts hands-free devices. A first offense will be considered a non-moving violation. A second or subsequent offense will be a moving violation recorded on one’s driving record, and it will be a primary stop offense. Tickets will range from $75 for a first offense to $150 for a fourth or subsequent offense.

Landowner Liability (SB 1042/PA 98-0522): Codifies and improves the statutes as a result of a decision from the Illinois Supreme Court in Hall v. Henn, which affected landowner liability for people on their land.

Prior to the Hall Case, state law was adopted that was meant to encourage property owners to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational or conservation purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes. In the Hall case, Tim and Sue Henn built and maintained a sled run on their property. The Friel family asked if they and the Hall family could use the sled run. During the use of the run, Ellen Hall was knocked unconscious, fractured her arm, and tore a ligament in her knee on some icy steps leading to the top of the run. When Ellen Hall sued, the lower circuit court ruled in favor of the landowners.

However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, Hall argued to the Court that the legal protections to landowners should be limited to circumstance in which the land is held out to the entire public at large for all recreational purpose. According to the plaintiff, the Act should not immunize a landowner if a specific person requested permission prior to the use of the land for a recreational purpose. With a tortured construction of the word “public” and expressing concern over the broad scope of the Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act would be limited in a manner argued by the plaintiff.

The bill extends liability coverage to landowners who open their property to the public, and expands the number of covered activities the public may engage in while on the landowner’s property. This coverage does not extend to landowners who open their property to only invited guests.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *