This featured column discusses the Illinois Supreme Court Decision of Larry E. Schultz, Special Administrator of the Estate of Laurene T. Schultz v. St. Clair County, 2022 IL 126856, affirming the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint against emergency dispatchers, which Plaintiff alleged failed to dispatch police when Plaintiff could not provide an exact address for the location of his wife, believed to be under the influence of alcohol.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED WILLFUL AND WANTON
MISCONDUCT BY THE COUNTY
Plaintiff filed a complaint against St. Clair County, St. Clair County CENCOM 911 and the Emergency Telephone System Board of St. Clair County. The complaint alleged that the County dispatch employee acted "in reckless disregard and indifference for the safety of the decedent" as follows:
(1) dispatched Mascoutah police to Handi-Mart, rather than All-Mart, after taking a 911 call from the Plaintiff, who reported that the decedent was under the influence of alcohol, had temporarily parked her vehicle at All- Mart, and requested police assistance to prevent her from driving away in her car;
(2) refused to dispatch the police to Sax's Speedi Check in Mascoutah after a second 911 call from the plaintiff, requesting police assistance to prevent the decedent from driving her vehicle, which was then parked at Sax's; and
(3) failed and refused to contact Mascoutah police after two calls from the plaintiff pleading that police be sent to intercept the decedent.
Schultz v. St. Clair Cnty., 175 N.E.3d 670 (Ill. App. 2020).
According to Plaintiff, the County dispatcher acted in reckless disregard for the safety of decedent and the general public for failure to provide timely notice to the Mascoutah police to intercept the decedent in her intoxicated condition. Id.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the County, including CENCOM and ETSB employees, was immune from liability pursuant to Section 4-102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Id. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss.
Tort Immunity Act Versus Emergency Telephone System Act
Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act provides in pertinent part:
"Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals." 745 ILCS 10/4-102 (West 2016).
Plaintiff alleged that he called 911 on two sperate occasions requesting police assistance for his wife, who was driving under the influence. Schultz, 175 N.E.3d 670 (Ill. App. 2020). In DeSmet ex rel. v. County of Rock Island, the Illinois Supreme Court found that Section 4-102 applied when police failed to respond to a request for police services. DeSmet ex rel. v. County of Rock Island, 302 Ill.Dec. 466 (Ill. 2006). The DeSmet court clearly defined Section 4-102 as all-encompassing of situations where either no police protection or inadequate police protection is provided to the general public. Id. Section 4-102 does not provide any exception for willful and wanton misconduct.
While the DeSmet ruling appeared on point with the allegations in Schultz, Plaintiff in Schultz argued that Section 15.1 of the Emergency Telephone System Act (50 ILCS 750/15.1 (West 2016)) applied rather than Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act. Unlike Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act which provides “blanket immunity”, Section 15.1 of the Emergency Telephone provides an exception if the “act or omission constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct.” 50 ILCS 750/15.1(a) (West 2016). If the Emergency Telephone System Act applied, it would create a potential question of fact as to whether Defendants were grossly negligent, reckless, or acted with intentional misconduct and may not be properly dismissed under the 2-619(a)(9) standard.
"The purpose of a section 2-619 motion is to dispose of issues of law and easily proved issues of fact early in the litigation. When ruling on a section 2-619 motion, the court must construe the pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The reviewing court must consider whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the dismissal or, absent an issue of material fact, whether a dismissal was proper as a matter of law.” Schultz v. St. Clair Cnty., 175 N.E.3d 670 (Ill. App. 2020) (citing CNA International, Inc. , 2012 IL App (1st) 112174, ¶ 31, 367 Ill.Dec. 116, 981 N.E.2d 441 (quoting Zerjal v. Daech & Bauer Construction, Inc. , 405 Ill. App. 3d 907, 910-11, 345 Ill.Dec. 887, 939 N.E.2d 1067 (2010)).
The Appellate Court found that the Emergency Telephone System Act focuses on the technical aspects of a public entity maintaining emergency services through 911 dispatch:
"In no event shall a public safety answering point, emergency telephone system board, or unit of local government assuming the duties of an emergency telephone system board, or its officers, employees, assigns, or agents be liable for any civil damages * that directly or indirectly results from, or is caused by, any act or omission in the development, design, installation, operation, maintenance, performance, or provision of 911 service required by this Act, unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct." 50 ILCS 750/15.1(a) (West 2016).
The Appellate Court held that even if the Emergency Telephone System Act applied beyond infrastructure and technical aspects to a scenario where a dispatcher failed to dispatch police services in response to an emergency call, it still would not supersede the immunities provided under the Tort Immunity Act. Schultz v. St. Clair Cnty., 2020 IL App (5th) 190256, 175 N.E.3d 670 (Ill. App. 2020).
Illinois Supreme Court Looks to Proximate Cause to Affirm
Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint
The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Court’s interpretation that the Emergency Telephone System Act only applied to technical aspects of the emergency systems and felt that the Appellate Court’s reliance on Desmet was misplaced. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment based upon the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice due to the lack of proximate cause. Larry E. Schultz, Special Administrator of the Estate of Laurene T. Schultz v. St. Clair County, 2022 IL 126856. Proximate cause is typically a question of fact for a jury, but it may be determined as a matter of law if the facts are clear that recovery by Plaintiff would never be possible. Id.
“Proximate cause encompasses two distinct requirements: cause in fact and legal cause. A defendant’s conduct is a ‘cause in fact’ of the plaintiff’s injury only if that conduct is a material element and a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Id. The conduct is a material element and substantial factor in bringing about the injury if, absent the defendant’s conduct, the injury would not have occurred. If actual cause is established, then the question is whether defendant should be held legally responsible for it.” Abrams v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill. 2d 251, 257-58 (2004).
In this case, Plaintiff could not establish that the injury would have occurred without Defendants’ refusal to dispatch emergency services. Decedent was under the influence of alcohol, in violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code. The sole proximate cause of the injury was the decedent’s decision to operate a vehicle while intoxicated. Therefore, dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint by the trial court was proper and the Illinois Supreme Court did not need to consider other basis for dismissal. The judgment was affirmed.
コメント