Pouk v. Village of Romeoville
344 Ill. Dec. 777
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Marie Pouk sued the Village of Romeoville for willful and wanton conduct following Christine Jungkans' death in a vehicle collision at Hale Ave and 135th St.
- The Village sought dismissal under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act; trial court granted 2-619 dismissal.
- Jungkans' death occurred five months after the Village allegedly ceased active enforcement of its intersection-visibility ordinance.
- Village notice and initial ordinance enforcement occurred in late 2007 (Nov. 24 notice; December 1 deadline) regarding bushes on Gregory Gotches' property.
- Plaintiff alleged the Village failed to instruct further trimming, failed to enforce the ordinance, and recommended the contractor (Sybert Landscaping) to fix the problem, constituting willful and wanton conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2-202 immunity applies to willful conduct claims | Pouks argues 2-202 governs, since willful/wanton conduct not immunized | Village asserts 2-103/2-105 immunities apply; 2-202 not applicable | 2-103/2-105 apply; 2-202 not applicable |
| Proper immunity construction for alleged inaction | Complaint shows failure to act; falls under 2-202 | Allegations show inaction, not enforcement; 2-103/2-105 apply | Inaction falls under 2-103/2-105, not 2-202 |
| Whether the complaint properly alleged enforcement of a law | Village failed to enforce its intersection visibility ordinance | There was some enforcement activity; not ongoing in 2008 | Complaint supports 2-103/2-105 applicability |
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice | Dismissal improperly forecloses potential facts establishing liability | Immunity bars action; no need for further proceedings | Affirmed dismissal; immunity applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony v. City of Chicago, 382 Ill.App.3d 983 (2008) (2-202 limited to enforcing law context; inaction cases inform immunity choice)
- Ware v. City of Chicago, 375 Ill.App.3d 574 (2007) (immunity analysis under 2-202 and 2-103/2-105)
- Bowler v. City of Chicago, 376 Ill.App.3d 208 (2007) (distinguishes 2-202 applicability when no law-enforcement action in progress)
- Lacey v. Village of Palatine, 232 Ill.2d 349 (2009) (whether public employees are enforcing a law is generally a fact question)
- Fitzpatrick v. City of Chicago, 112 Ill.2d 211 (1986) (general framework for willful and wanton conduct analysis)