2015 IL App (2d) 141114
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On April 14, 2011, North Chicago police officer James Perrin collided with a car carrying Mary Lacey (passenger) and Margo Willis (driver) while responding to radio traffic about a vehicle taken without permission (VTWOP).
- Plaintiff sued Perrin and the City alleging negligence and willful-and-wanton conduct; the City asserted immunity under the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2‑202, 2‑109).
- The trial court granted defendants summary judgment on the willful-and-wanton counts, leaving only negligence and the question whether Perrin was in the execution and enforcement of the law at the time of the collision.
- At trial the jury returned a general verdict for Lacey ($125,016.50) but also answered two special interrogatories affirmatively: that Perrin was en route to assist Officer Grayer and that he was in the execution and enforcement of the law. The court entered judgment for defendants, holding the special interrogatories controlled.
- Posttrial motions (JNOV/new trial) were denied; plaintiff also unsuccessfully moved shortly before trial to file a third amended complaint to add a spoliation claim for destroyed original dispatch tapes. Plaintiff appeals challenging summary judgment, the special interrogatories and their answers, denial of leave to amend, and admission of the call log.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Summary judgment on willful-and-wanton count | Lacey: disputed facts (looking down, accelerating, entering intersection early, violating police rules) create a triable issue of willful and wanton conduct | Perrin: evidence shows, at most, negligence; his actions occurred while responding to police radio about VTWOP | Affirmed: undisputed facts do not show willful-and-wanton conduct as a matter of law; summary judgment proper |
| 2) Validity and effect of special interrogatories / jury answers | Lacey: interrogatories were improper/misleading; jury answers lack substantial evidentiary support; general verdict should control or a new trial be granted | Defendants: interrogatories were proper and supported by testimony (radio calls, officers en route); special findings control an inconsistent general verdict | Affirmed: interrogatories were proper; jury’s affirmative findings that Perrin was en route to assist and in execution/enforcement of law are not against the manifest weight of the evidence; special answers control |
| 3) Denial of leave to file third amended complaint (spoliation claim) | Lacey: City destroyed original dispatch tapes; amendment would cure defects and is timely | City: late, prejudicial, and not a request to cure an existing pleaded defect; trial court has discretion | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion—amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and plaintiff had prior opportunities to amend |
| 4) Admission of police call log into evidence | Lacey: call log prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus inadmissible business record | City: call log was an ordinary‑course business record; print date differs from incident times; admissible | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the call log as a business record |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzpatrick v. City of Chicago, 112 Ill.2d 211 (Ill. 1986) (investigating a traffic accident can constitute execution or enforcement of the law)
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 378 Ill. App.3d 373 (Ill. App. 2007) (limits on immunity where officer’s role in pursuit/assistance is ambiguous)
- Suwanski v. Village of Lombard, 342 Ill. App.3d 248 (Ill. App. 2003) (pursuit facts can create triable issue on willful-and-wanton; context matters)
- Bruecks v. County of Lake, 276 Ill. App.3d 567 (Ill. App. 1995) (officer need not be in an emergency response to be executing or enforcing the law)
- Wade v. City of Chicago, 364 Ill. App.3d 773 (Ill. App. 2006) (violation of internal rules does not automatically establish willful-and-wanton conduct)
- Stamat v. Merry, 78 Ill. App.3d 445 (Ill. App. 1979) (inattentive conduct that is negligent does not necessarily rise to willful-and-wanton)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill.2d 541 (Ill. 2002) (standards for special interrogatories and when they control a general verdict)
- Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill.2d 494 (Ill. 1967) (standard for judgment notwithstanding the verdict)