Boub v. Township of Wayne
Open-knowledge reference entry
Boub v. Township of Wayne is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Illinois made in 1998, where it was held that municipalities are not liable for the damage cyclists suffer on the poorly maintained roads. The cyclists were ruled "permitted, but not intended, users of the roads" in the state of Illinois. Under the state law, municipalities have a duty to maintain local roads in a safe condition. However, they are liable for damages only if the use of a road was both permitted and intended. The justices were sharply divided on the issue—four of them voted for the decision and three against. The dissenters called the decision "absurd and dangerous".
The case originated from an incident on September 8, 1992 in which the cyclist Jon Boub was riding over a bridge in the Township of Wayne, DuPage County. The bridge was being renovated at the time, and the asphalt had been partially removed from the road bed, revealing gaps between the wooden planks. When the front wheel of the Boub's bike "became stuck between two of the planks", he was thrown off the bike, hit the steel railing of the bridge, and received severe injuries.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Boub v. Township of Wayne” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Boub, Township and Wayne, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 25, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4949232. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1998 and 1992.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Boub v. Township of Wayne”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Boub v. Township of Wayne primary sources, Boub v. Township of Wayne archive and Boub research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Boub v. Township of Wayne”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Boub v. Township of Wayne” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.