of any immunity provision found in the Act. Instead, the Fifth District found the existence of a duty under the common-law doctrine of public immunity. Long, 178 Ill. App. 3d at 53, 532 N.E.2d at 921. Long is not only legally distinguishable from Havens and Bainter but also factually distinguishable. Unlike the situations in Havens and Bainter, the trees in Long were so overgrown they were physically encroaching the street. In fact, the plaintiff in Long testified that the brush physically struck the side of her car and tore her blouse. Clearly, courts have held that public entities can be held liable for injuries incurred as a result of objects being located on a public road. See O’Connell v. Chicago & North Western R.R. Co., 305 Ill. App. 430, 442, 27 N.E.2d 644, 650 (1940) (<HOLDING>). The duty to remove known encroachments
holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning holding that a city may be held liable on account of the unconstitutional conduct of city officials only if the citys policy or custom played a part in the violation holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight