Robles v. City of Chicago
10 N.E.3d 236
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On Sept. 26, 2009, Chicago Police chased and cornered Juan Robles; Officer Ivan Lopez shot him twice in the back; Robles died.
- Multiple officers participated; several testified they saw Robles holding a gun and that he turned and pointed it at officers; ballistics/medical evidence showed bullets entered his back and exited/chambered toward the chest.
- Plaintiff Luz Robles, as special administrator, sued the City alleging willful and wanton misconduct in the shooting and in destruction of Robles’ car; she also alleged the City failed to preserve a surveillance videorecording (that claim was dismissed).
- The trial court granted the City summary judgment, reasoning discretionary-act immunity (745 ILCS 10/2-201) barred recovery even for willful and wanton conduct.
- The appellate court reversed: it held section 2-202 (execution/enforcement of law) — which preserves liability for willful and wanton acts — governs officer conduct while enforcing the law and raised a triable issue of willful and wanton misconduct requiring remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 2-201 or 2-202 of the Tort Immunity Act governs officer shooting while enforcing law | Section 2-202 applies because officers were enforcing the law; thus City remains liable for willful and wanton conduct | Section 2-201 provides broader discretionary-act immunity that bars liability, including for willful and wanton acts | 2-202 controls for enforcement/execution of law; it immunizes negligent acts but not willful and wanton misconduct |
| Whether evidence can support willful and wanton misconduct (precluding summary judgment) | Conflicts between officer statements and physical/medical evidence create triable issues; discovery and expert analysis required | Officers uniformly reported seeing a gun; shooting was justified — no willful and wanton conduct as matter of law | Triable factual issues exist about willful and wanton conduct; summary judgment for City reversed and remanded |
| Whether claim for destruction of car survived summary judgment | (Plaintiff) alleged car was destroyed negligently by police | (City) no evidence supports negligence in destroying car | Plaintiff did not contest dismissal on appeal; appellate court affirmed dismissal |
| Admissibility/foundation of certain exhibits relied on by plaintiff | Several documents and scene diagrams support plaintiff’s dispute of officers’ accounts | City challenged foundation; trial court excluded some exhibits | Appellate court ignored exhibits the trial court excluded but found remaining record sufficed to create triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, 224 Ill. 2d 213 (section 2-201 immunity covers willful and wanton acts unless another statute creates an exception)
- Village of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enters., Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 484 (section 2-202 limits immunity for enforcement of law)
- Glover v. City of Chicago, 106 Ill. App. 3d 1066 (willful and wanton is a jury question; conflicts in evidence should not be resolved on motion)