Nourse v. The City of Chicago
75 N.E.3d 397
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Nourse1 v. City of Chicago involves Rudy Nourse, elevator serviceman, and wife Lauren suing City and inspector Carter for injuries from an elevator pit incident.
- Carter, City inspector with Bureau of Elevators, allegedly ordered Rudy into an elevator pit during testing.
- Rudy was injured when the elevator descended; plaintiff asserts willful/wanton and negligence claims, plus Lauren’s loss-of-consortium claim.
- Carter died May 27, 2015; no estate substituted; no special administrator named under 2-1008(b).
- City moved to dismiss under 2-619.1 and 2-619, arguing immunity under 2-105 and 2-207; amended complaint filed but later dismissed with prejudice on immunity grounds.
- The appellate court affirms dismissal, holding immunity applies to acts during an inspection and precludes suit for willful/wanton and negligence claims arising from inspection-related conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does immunity apply to acts during an inspection to bar the suit? | Nourse argues immunity does not bar because Carter’s order preceded any inspection. | City argues immunity under 2-105 and 2-207 covers acts during inspection. | Yes, immunity applies; action dismissed. |
| Did the circuit court properly dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice given Carter’s death and substitution issues? | Amended complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice based on substitution absence. | Immunity and 2-1008(b) substitution rules warrant dismissal as to deceased party. | Yes, dismissal with prejudice affirmed, alternative basis via 2-1008(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Flores, 408 Ill. App. 3d 631 (2011) (inspections immunities bar related wrongful acts during inspection)
- Ware v. City of Chicago, 375 Ill. App. 3d 574 (2007) (immunity protections for entities and employees from liability during inspections)
- Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill.2d 112 (1993) (burden shifting on immunity motions; affidavits may be used to refute immunity)
- Epstein v. Chicago Bd. of Ed., 178 Ill.2d 370 (1997) (standard for dismissing on immunity after initial burden)
- Pouk v. Village of Romeoville, 405 Ill. App. 3d 194 (2010) (interpretation of immunity provisions; plain language controls)
- First Midwest Trust Co. v. Britton, 322 Ill. App. 3d 922 (2001) (courts not to create exceptions to immunity)