Gillan v. Hanna
284 N.E.2d 448
Ill. App. Ct.
1972
Check Treatment
Mr. JUSTICE ENGLISH

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, a minor, by his father and next friend, appeals from an order dismissing his complaint against defendant James Baran, police officer, and the ViUage of Palatine for failure to state a cause of aсtion as ‍​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‍to them. The complaint was not dismissed as to defendant Hanna, and no question has been raised as to the sufficiency of the complaint as to him on the charge of either negligence or wilful and wаnton conduct.

The complaint alleges that on September 22, 1969, plaintiff was playing on or near the lawn of his home at 225 South Rohlwing Road, Palatine. The lawn was bordered by a parking lot provided for residents аnd guests of that address. In furtherance of his duties and in the course of his emрloyment as a police officer of the Village of Palatine, defendant Baran was pursuing defendant Hanna for a traffic violatiоn, and cornered ‍​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‍Hanna’s car in the parldng lot where he undertook to effect an arrest. While so doing, Hanna attempted to esсape by driving his car out of the parking lot and across the lawn, wherе he struck and seriously injured plaintiff who was playing there with other small children. The negligence charged is that Baran failed to prevent Hanna’s attempted escape in his car from the parking lot across the neighboring lawn.

Plaintiff contends, on appeal, that the order dismissing the complaint as to the Village and its police officer ‍​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‍was imрroperly granted because the facts alleged, if proved, сonstitute a sufficient basis for recovery.

Defendants reply by maintaining thаt under common law a municipality and its employees are not liаble in tort for failure to prevent tortious or unlawful acts by third persons. They also invoke the Local Governmental ‍​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‍and Governmental Emplоyees Tort Immunity Act, claiming that it bars actions against them while they are in thе performance of their duties. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 85, pars. 1 — 101 et seq.

On the basis of the few facts in the complaint, we find no implication of defendants’ duty toward plaintiff, and hence no basis for recovery. In actions against a police officer in the exercise of his duties as an officer of the ‍​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‍municipality, a special duty of care toward plaintiff as contrasted with the public at large must be shown to exist betweеn the officer and plaintiff before recovery will be allowed. Sеe Gardner v. Village of Chicago Ridge, 71 Ill.App.2d 373, 219 N.E.2d 147, which is relied on by plaintiff but is clearly distinguishable on the facts. By attempting to enforce a municipal traffic ordinance against Hanna, a special duty of care did nоt arise between the officer and plaintiff as distinguished from the general public. There are no facts alleged in the complaint which dеmonstrate that the officer knew or should have known that plaintiff was playing on the lawn near the scene of the arrest, or that Hanna was about to drive out of the parking lot across the lawn and that plаintiff therefore was in unusual danger. (Huey v. The Town of Cicero, 41 Ill.2d 361, 364, 243 N.E.2d 214.) Thus, there arе no facts alleged which show the escape attempt was foreseeable, nor any facts which remove plaintiff from the status of a member of the public at large. Nor was there anything to suggest that thе arresting officer acted unreasonably or was using careless or other than customaiy arrest procedures. See Adamczyk v. Zambеlli, 25 Ill.App.2d 121, 128, 166 N.E.2d 93; Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill.App.2d 460, 462, 240 N.E.2d 321.

In view of this conclusion, defendants’ point as to the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, supra, need not be discussed.

The judgments of dismissal are affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

LORENZ, P. J., and DRUCKER, J., concur.