Ghost Cars in Cook County Waterways: What the New Sonar Findings Mean for Public Safety and Municipal Liability in Cook County

Cook County’s waterways are part of daily life in Chicago. They are also a predictable danger when roads run alongside water.

A recent news investigation reported sonar mapping of local waterways showing roughly 270 underwater targets described as “anomalies,” many of which appear consistent with vehicles. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cook-county-waterways-hold-270-anomalies-many-look-like-submerged-cars/3899645/.

Some vehicles have already been recovered. The report emphasized that recovery is difficult and expensive. The deeper point is simpler. There may be many submerged cars in the system. That should change how we think about prevention.

This topic is not theoretical for our firm. We tried Sabanovic v. City of Chicago, a case where Irma Sabanovic tragically drove off the end of an unprotected roadway and into the Chicago River. We also represented the family of Michael Jansson, who was found in the Chicago River (at the same location as Irma Sabanovic) more than ten years after he disappeared. Cases like these teach the same lesson. Near water, a missing barrier is not a minor defect. It can be fatal.

Cars end up in water for many reasons. Many civil cases focus on the driving environment created by public entities. Was the roadway edge maintained. Were warnings maintained. Were barriers maintained.

Illinois’ Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act sets the framework for when the City of Chicago or Cook County may be held responsible. It also sets defenses that can end a case early. The core idea is this. Local governments must exercise ordinary care to maintain public property in a reasonably safe condition for people who are permitted to use it. In many cases, the plaintiff must also prove the government had notice of the dangerous condition, or that it existed long enough that the government should have known.

The hardest fights often involve how a claim is characterized. Governments frequently argue that a case is really about the initial decision not to install a sign, device, or barrier. Certain immunity provisions can protect that type of decision. That is why the facts matter. A claim focused on failure to install something new can be treated very differently than a claim focused on failure to maintain or repair an existing safety measure. A guardrail that was never installed is one fact pattern. A guardrail that was damaged and left unrepaired is another. These distinctions drive outcomes.

Strong cases near waterways are built from specific evidence. Start with the site. Search into the history of the location.  Review historical photographs. Review municipal improvements made over the years.  Was something ever removed?

Records often decide the dispute. Work orders, maintenance logs, and crash history can show that the hazard was known. They can also show that safety measures were planned, installed, altered, or abandoned. In many cases, those records separate a preventable death from an unavoidable accident.

The sonar reporting matters because it suggests a larger pattern. If many vehicles are in the system, recovery is only one part of the response. Prevention is the other. Agencies should identify likely entry points. They should audit barriers, signage, lighting, and roadway geometry near water. They should prioritize locations with repeated incidents. They should treat water-adjacent roadway edges as high-risk zones, not ordinary curbs.

Finally, families should know that municipal cases move fast. Deadlines against local governments can be short. Physical conditions can change quickly. Evidence can disappear. Early investigation matters.

Chicago’s river and lakefront are assets. They should not be traps. When public roads meet water, the margin for error is thin. Public entities must maintain protections that match the risk.