item of information in a notice. In Carroll v. Chicago Housing Authority, 155 Ill.App.3d 710, 108 Ill.Dec. 124, 125, 508 N.E.2d 285, 286 (1987), the court stated: Illinois courts construe the Tort Immunity Act to require, in the first instance, that all elements listed in [the notice provision] be present in the written notice; the omission of even one element is fatal. Nevertheless, once a particular element is furnished, the courts take a liberal approach as to the sufficiency of that element, provided that it is ‘reasonably sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the statute ... and the public entity has not been misled or prejudiced thereby.’ 108 Ill.Dec. at 125, 508 N.E.2d at 286. See also Lando v. Chicago, 128 Ill.App.3d 597, 83 Ill.Dec. 752, 755, 470 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Reese, 149 Ill.Dec. at 463, 561 N.E.2d at
holding the completely fully fairly element is met if the party against whom preclusion is sought had adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after holding that wjhere as here an element has been completely omitted from the formal notice  a plaintiff will not be found to have complied with the act holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge