*1 518
(No. 62767. JOHNSON, A. v. THE RETIRE- Appellee, JAMES OF THE MENT BOARD POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY FUND, BENEFIT AND Appellant.
Opinion December filed MILLER, JJ., RYAN, dissenting. MORAN *2 James Miner, D. and Judson Montgomery H. Corpo- Counsel, ration of K. Chicago (Mary Rochford and Jo- Moore, A. of seph counsel), appellant. for Olson, Mark D. of Jeddeloh, Olson & of Chicago, for appellee. Ellbogen, Thomas J.
Stephanie Pleines, Thomas G. for amicus Draths, and V. of cu- Joseph Roddy, Chicago, riae Order of Police, Fraternal No. Chicago Lodge
CHIEF JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the court: 12, 1982,
On Johnson, October the A. plaintiff, James officer, a Chicago applied bene duty-disability defendant, fits to the the Retirement Board Po licemen’s and Benefit Fund. to the Il Annuity According linois Code, Pension who becomes disabled is entitled to “ordinary” disability benefits 50% equal of his at the time salary (Ill. the disability occurs. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. if par 155.) However, the po liceman is while injured performing “act of he duty,” may “duty” receive benefits to 75% of disability equal his Rev. Stat. salary.
The Illinois Pension Code defines an act of as: duty
“Any act of duty inherently involving special ordinarily aby assumed citizen in the ordinary life, imposed walks of by on a the statutes of this State or the or police regulations ordinances of the city in which this Article is in effect a special or or assignment; any act of heroism performed city having for its direct the the life purpose saving of or person the Ill. property policeman.” other than Rev. IO8V2,par. Stat. 5-113. sole on is whether the in- appeal plaintiffs issue the sustained as result of an act of enti- duty, was
jury him to benefits. tling duty-disability The factual in this case is undis- essentially scenario 20, 1981, On the was puted. July plaintiff assigned the Michigan traffic-control at intersection of Ave- Drive, Chicago. nue and Wacker Plaintiff testified that, at his a citizen at assigned standing while post, corner of the intersection called to him for as- northwest process sistance traffic accident. In regarding investigate intersection to and respond, pavement on wet fell. As result plaintiff slipped fall, tendon in his plaintiff ruptured distal unsuccessful, right surgery Corrective bicep. hand remained right paralyzed. plaintiff’s held a on the claim hearing The defendant plaintiff’s and concluded that the was not entitled to duty- *3 in- The defendant reasoned that the benefits. disability the result of a but special sustained was jury citizen, “i.e. rather resulted from an act assumed by any in- street”; therefore the was not traversing in in an act the Illinois Pension duty of defined jured Code.
Thereafter, the his to plaintiff brought complaint of under the Administrative circuit court Cook County 1983, Law par. Review affirming The circuit court entered order 228). defendant’s decision. the circuit court’s affir
The court reversed appellate court appellate of the defendant’s decision. mation officer is while police injured per held that “whenever his protecting serving public, forming duty *** Ill. (137 he is entitled to benefits.” duty-disability 546, concluded that 3d court 549.) appellate App. the plaintiff’s injury occurred while “he was engaged activities related to his as a officer protect and serve the public,” thus him to entitling duty-disabil benefits. 137 Ill. ity 3d App. 546,
The defendant argues before this court that of- ficers injured while those performing inherently danger- ous duties that officers only police are called upon are perform admittedly entitled to bene- duty-disability fits. Conversely, states, defendant in- police officers jured while the more performing routine tasks that civil- ians are may perform covered section 5—155 of Illinois Code, Pension which provides dis- benefits. ability The defendant concludes that the act of walking across street is an act assumed citizen, by any thus entitling plaintiff to only ordinary disability ben- efits.
At the outset of our
we are
analysis
mindful of the
judicial role in
construing
statute;
to ascertain
namely,
the intent of the legislature and
effect. (City of
give
v.
Springfield
Board
Election Commissioners (1985),
105 Ill.
2d
340-41.) Where construction of pension
statutes
the rule is
necessary,
that pension acts must
liberally construed
favor of
rights
pensioner.
(See Board
Trustees v. Christy (1980),
246 Ga.
555,
We do not find in the statute anything or in its legis- lative history support defendant’s strained con- struction that the term “special risk” only encompasses “inherently dangerous” activities. Police officers as- *4 signed to duties that protection involve of the dis- public charge those duties acts which are by performing similar to those involved civilian many occupations. Driving an automobile, entering building, stairs, walking up
and even the street are activities common to or occupations, policeman plumber. be many There can little officers police assigned question, to duties that protection public discharge involve are simi- their acts which responsibilities by performing lar to those The many occupations. involved civilian acting. crux is the in which the officer is capacity citi- is called to to a upon respond When zen, he must his attention and directed to- energies have to deal with being any eventuality. wards prepared citizen, unlike an Additionally, has no as to whether it is his to duty option respond; of the hazard encountered. regardless ultimately respond bar, In the case at at the time of his disabling injury, to the citizens was his sworn duties plaintiff discharging to the call of a citizen to inves- of Chicago by responding There is civilian occu- accident. no tigate comparable to the to that of a traffic pation patrolman responding call of a citizen.
The ultimate reliance on the fact that defendant’s he was injured was a street” when “traversing of the Illi of section 5—154 is misplaced. provisions par. nois Pension Code benefits do 154) conferring right duty-disability an act of duty. that an officer be injured by require an officer Rather, is awarded when duty disability *** *** incurred as the result of injury “disabled added.) (Ill. an act duty." (Emphasis performance of In the Stat. plaintiff’s Rev. to the case, the act of was the act of responding act, he In that of a citizen for assistance. performing call injured. offi- envisions interpretation defendant’s chase, battle, car or in a gun high-speed cer involved in order situation dangerous some other obviously re- This is an overly benefits. duty-disability qualify *5 523 If this court were strictive and unrealistic interpretation. narrow of section reading defendant’s adopt the dedi- 113, it could officers from discourage police duties, of their cated and enthusiastic performance the detriment of all the citizens of Chicago. this this is a case of first before impression
While statute, court under current other have jurisdictions addressed this issue statutes. Those juris- under similar dictions have held: engaged
“A is of policeman actually performance his protection property of life and whenever carrying he is out the official orders or requirements his office. he patrolling, investigating, Whether or di- traffic, recting very is the essence of and should stand as a symbol protector of the of life and (Blanchard property.” Department v. New Orleans Police (La. 585, App. 1968), 588.) 210 So. 2d See also Pollara v. Police & Firemen’s Retirement Sys- tem Trustees 585, 616; 183 444 (1982), N.J. A.2d Super. Minor v. Sonoma Board County Retirement Employees (1975), 53 Cal. 3d 26 App. Cal. Rptr.
We conclude that the action of the in cross- plaintiff the intersection to to a citizen’s call for as- ing respond sistance constitutes an “act of as defined in the Il- duty” linois Pension Therefore, Code. judgment court is appellate affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. RYAN, JUSTICE dissenting: I do not with the conclusion that the agree majority’s in an “act of engaged duty” prescribed statute as a enhanced requirement pension when he was injured. The opinion emphasizes part the Pension Code that awards when an duty disability officer is as a result of an incurred “in disabled injury of an act of performance duty.” (Ill. IO8V2, par. majority seems to tie the
“act of standard duty” to the nature of the work to which the is assigned, and not to the nature of the work in which he was when I engaged injured. do agree. Code defines what is meant an act of police duty inherently involving It duty. act of “[a]ny special not ordinarily assumed by a citizen in the walks (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. of life.” *6 Stat. ch. 108x/2, I do not think that the act of slipping falling while walking across the street involves a inherently special not ordinarily assumed a citizen in by the ordinary walks of life.
The majority searches opinion the in legislative tent in However, embodied the statute. it fails to discuss an earlier decision an judicial court, of this opinion which obviously prompted definition of an act of set forth in the present of the In language Code. People ex rel. Donovan v. Retirement Board the Po licemen’s & Annuity Fund (1927), 326 Ill. a Benefit had been across walking street in Chicago, as in the case now before us. While doing so he was hit case, automobile. In that by one, as in this the retire ment argued board that the “act of must a haz duty” ardous service, duty peculiar and not an act of the street. This court rejected that argument. in Donovan Almost after immediately opinion was filed, the Pension Code was amended to include the lan of the guage definition of an act present of duty, requir that ing act be one inherently involving risk special not assumed a citizen in the ordinarily by walks of life. In to the response board’s in this case argument that the amendment reflected an intent of the legislature the amicus brief that change in this case ar holding, that gues amendment was not in to this response court’s decision in Donovan because the amendment had introduced been to the of the I can- prior filing opinion. this accept argument because the of this opinion court in Donovan affirmed an order of the circuit court of Cook County awarding writ mandamus directing the retirement board to restore the enhanced I pension. find that the amendment was in to the response holding of the circuit court "and to this court’s in Dono- holding van, and was meant to change law announced in those holdings.
The majority’s opinion may prove to be a serious drain on pension funds because, to the according major- ity opinion, almost all policemen, excepting those en- in clerical gaged duties, who are injured at work will be entitled to the enhanced pension. Aside from this dan- ger, however, the majority’s opinion will not probably create too large rent in the body law. If the leg- islature does not with agree majority’s holding, can reject that holding by amending Code again, as it did in response this court’s holding Donovan. However, I would prefer the which I holding have urged herein because I find such a construction is dic- clearly tated language of the Code and the fact that this language added this following court’s holding *7 If Donovan. the legislature were to find that the holding for which I does urge not with its comport senti- present ments, then that holding likewise could be easily an changed by amendment to the Pension Code.
JUSTICE MILLER in joins this dissent.
JUSTICE MORAN, also dissenting: Although pension statutes are to given be con liberal struction to effect their and the purpose objectives accomplished (Edwards v. Board 22 (1974), Trustees Ill. 3d App. 260, 263, 61 (1975), Ill. 2d I 330), dis affd agree with the majority’s expansive interpretation term “act of duty” would reverse. in the
There are two distinct disability provisions A is enti Pension Code. who becomes disabled tled to of his benefits 50% “ordinary” disability equal at the time the occurs. Rev. Stat. (Ill. salary disability 1081/2, If, however, par. 155.) 5— “in disabled as a result of an suffered injury becomes of an act or acts of he is entitled duty,” performance benefits to 75% of his equal to receive “duty disability” The 144.) Rev. Stat. (Ill. par. salary. 5— definition of “act of distinction turns on the statutory duty.”
Section 5—113 of the Code defines the term “act in inherently to include act of duty” “[a]ny police not assumed citizen volving special ordinarily by in the walks ordinary 1983, ch. of life” of the statute meaning plain those activities in limits this definition to include only volving extraordinary to the performance risks peculiar in re The definition an act contemplates duties. police peculiar to a situation which officer faces sponse of his duties. police Eligibility hazards reason officers benefits is restricted disability” “duty the call of duty conduct rises above and beyond whose of undertaking disabled as the result who become in the risks or acts of heroism extraordinary perform ance of their duties. an the result of such plaintiff’s injury is not or risk. The act of a street
undertaking not, in the risk. It undertaking or extraordinary 113, an act which is “not ordinar- of section language walks of life.” a citizen assumed ily duty-disabil- in this case to receive Allowing Assem- is not to the General only contrary benefits ity Code, in the Pension intent manifested expressly bly’s have or will to those officers who is an affront of extraordi- disabling injuries performance suffer *8 their discharging acts serve nary courage of their citizens protect community. RYAN in this dissent. joins
JUSTICE
(No. 63237. In re MICHAEL GEORGE CHERONIS, Attorney,
Respondent. Opinion December filed