Stehlik v. Village of Orland Park
966 N.E.2d 428
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Dolores Stehlik and Jerry Stehlik sued Village of Orland Park and Officer Kelly for injuries from a collision with a police squad car on 143rd St at Greenland Ave, Orland Park, Aug. 13, 1999.
- Defendants moved for a directed verdict under 745 ILCS 10/2-202 after plaintiffs presented their case; trial court granted on Apr. 10, 2009, finding immunity and no willful/wanton conduct.
- Immunity under 2-202 covers acts in the execution/enforcement of the law, not all on-duty activities; whether grounded in enforcement depends on the circumstances.
- Evidence showed Kelly was responding to a traffic altercation, then escorted the blue Ford to a showup at the white minivan’s location; he then attempted a three-point turn with emergency lights active, leading to the collision.
- Plaintiffs’ expert testified to non-enforcement when Kelly followed the blue Ford; the trial court found the showup was logically connected to enforcement.
- Court affirms the directed verdict, holding Kelly remained in the course of enforcing the law up to the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Kelly engaged in execution/enforcement of the law at the time of the collision? | Stehliks: engagement ended when he instructed showup. | Village/Kelly: engagement continued through showup. | Yes, ongoing enforcement; the showup was part of enforcement. |
| Whether the conduct was willful and wanton given the U-turn? | There was utter indifference due to an illegal U-turn. | No; conduct not willful/wanton under the facts. | Directed verdict for defendants on willful/wanton. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzpatrick v. City of Chicago, 112 Ill.2d 211 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1986) (investigating a traffic accident constitutes execution/enforcement of the law)
- Morris v. City of Chicago, 130 Ill.App.3d 740 (First District, Appellate Court, 1985) (responding to a crime in progress can be execution/enforcement)
- Aikens v. Morris, 145 Ill.2d 273 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1991) (transportation of prisoners not immunized as enforcement/execution)
- Simpson v. City of Chicago, 233 Ill.App.3d 791 (First District, Appellate Court, 1992) (missing persons/missing-emergency call not necessarily enforcement)
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 378 Ill.App.3d 373 (First District, Appellate Court, 2007) (traffic control or pursuit-related assistance can trigger immunity)
- Sanders v. City of Chicago, 306 Ill.App.3d 356 (First District, Appellate Court, 1999) (emergency context does not always immunize automatic cruising or non-enforcement actions)
- Leads v. City of Chicago, 238 Ill.App.3d 12 (First District, Appellate Court, 1992) (conclusory testimony regarding enforcement insufficient for immunity)
- Thompson v. City of Chicago, 108 Ill.2d 429 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1985) (enforcing the law is a course of conduct, not necessarily a single act)
- Urban v. Village of Lincolnshire, 272 Ill.App.3d 1087 (Second District, Appellate Court, 1995) (wilful/wanton question may be decided as matter of law if overwhelming)