2020 IL App (5th) 190256
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Larry E. Schultz, as special administrator for his wife Laurene Schultz, sued St. Clair County, CENCOM 9-1-1, the county Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSB), and an unnamed dispatcher after his wife died when she drove away following two 911 calls requesting police intervention for an allegedly intoxicated driver.
- Complaint alleged dispatcher error/misconduct: dispatch to wrong store (Handi-Mart vs. All-Mart), refusal to dispatch to a named location (Sax’s Speedi Check) on a second call, and failure to contact Mascoutah police to intercept the decedent; alleged willful, wanton, and reckless conduct under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing (inter alia) that CENCOM/ETSB lack separate legal capacity and that immunity precludes suit under §4-102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
- The circuit court granted dismissal (April 5, 2019); the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding §4-102 immunity applies where a 911 call requests police intervention and that §15.1 of the Emergency Telephone System Act does not displace that blanket immunity.
- Justice Wharton dissented: he would apply §15.1’s limited immunity standard (gross negligence/recklessness/intentional misconduct), would not find dismissal proper at pleading stage, and would reverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §4‑102 of the Tort Immunity Act bars suit for failure to dispatch police after a 911 request | Schultz: §15.1 (Emergency Telephone System Act) governs 911 claims and allows recovery for gross negligence/recklessness | County: §4‑102 provides blanket immunity for failure to provide police protection | Held: §4‑102 applies to dispatch failures after a 911 call requesting police; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether §15.1 of the Emergency Telephone System Act supersedes Tort Immunity Act immunities for dispatcher misconduct | Schultz: §15.1 expressly covers the performance/provision of 911 service and controls | County: §15.1 targets infrastructure/technical aspects and is not intended to supplant Tort Immunity Act | Held: §15.1 is a limited, catch‑all immunity for 911 system failures but does not displace broader Tort Immunity Act provisions like §4‑102 |
| Capacity to be sued of CENCOM and ETSB | Schultz: CENCOM/ETSB are public safety entities/boards and may be sued separately | County: CENCOM/ETSB are not separate legal entities and lack capacity | Held: Court resolved case on immunity grounds; dismissal of claims against entities/board affirmed (capacity argument asserted by defendants) |
| Sufficiency of willful/wanton (recklessness) allegations under §2‑615 | Schultz: complaint adequately pleads reckless/wanton conduct by dispatcher/agency | County: allegations are conclusory and insufficient | Held: dismissal affirmed—dispositive immunity under §4‑102 (also affirmed under pleading standards) |
Key Cases Cited
- DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, 219 Ill. 2d 497 (Tort Immunity Act §4‑102 supplies broad "blanket" immunity for failures to provide or to adequately provide police protection)
- Chiczewski v. Emergency Telephone System Board of Du Page County, 295 Ill. App. 3d 605 (Emergency Telephone System Act provides limited tort immunity for agencies that create/run 911 systems)
- Harris v. Thompson, 2012 IL 112525 (statutory construction: related statutes should be construed together to give effect to each)
- In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 (primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain legislative intent)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (on motions to dismiss, pleadings construed in favor of nonmoving party)