Pollion v. Lewis

al., Plaintiffs, et Andrew POLLION Secretary LEWIS, John W. Illinois,* al., Defendants.

No. C69 Court,

United States District Illinois, N. D. E. D. Nov. * 25(d) Pursuant of Rule in office former Lewis as successor (1) deceased, Powell, recently of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- defendant Paul dure, this Court has substituted defendant Ill., Legal Kahn, Chicago,

David Aid Bureau, plaintiff. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago,

William J. Ill., for defendant. CUMMINGS, Judge, Before Circuit

ROBSON, , Judge, Chief District PERRY, Judge. District AND ORDER OPINION Judge. CUMMINGS, Circuit on class Plaintiffs initiated this action behalf themselves and all regis whose drivers’ licenses or have been revoked due trations operation the Illinois Financial Re sponsibility Law. Ill.Rev.Stat. seq.1 They 95½, 7A-101 et seek a dec- § action, inception seq. seq. of this et and re Since Section 7A-101 amended made, placed Responsi previous been amendments have additional July 1, July bility Mo effective Illinois Law under the 1957 action, purposes Law, tor For Vehicle supply that certain laration of future financial re- sponsibility. They statute their are unconstitutional on were unable to satis- They fy applied.2 request demands, face and as their ina- both of bility restoration of their drivers’ licenses resulted in their registrations. they Finally, driving They vehicle privileges. ask all have Cellini, quested hearings appropriate that defendants Lewis and state the before charged they agencies, officials with administration state and in instance each statute, ignored and request enforcement of the be en were either or their was joined from inability future enforcement of these denied. As a of their result provisions. operate they moved for the legally, Plaintiffs a motor vehicle three-judge convention of in ac irreparable court claim to have suffered harm cordance mobility. with 28 on U.S.C. and due to their loss of needed July granted. that motion was Responsi The current Financial time, At the same defendants’ cross mo bility long succession of follows complaint tion for dismissal of the was similar statutes in Illinois as well as Powell, denied. Pollion v. 47 F.R.D. 331 attempted other states which have (N.D.Ill.1969). cope many problems with the difficult alleged posed by The relevant facts in this com- automobile See Kesler traffic. plaint complicated Department Safety, etc., are not and be v. of Public briefly origi- Utah, summarized. Each of the 7 L. representative plaintiffs governing nal was himself Ed.2d 641. The rules finan involved owned a motor vehicle which cial of automobile owners operators comprise portion was involved in an automobile accident. and one Intervening plaintiff alleges comprehensive Kalec Illinois vehicle code falsely operating public was accused a ve- directed toward health and wel supposedly pedestri- hicle which struck fare in automobile traffic. Ill.Rev.Stat. party Complex an. In each licensing instance another and 95½. registration report requirements protect accident filed an accident public imprudent with the of Public Works and unsafe mo Buildings claiming injury Responsibility and dam- torists. ages exceeding Law, plaintiff hand, No damages arising was on $100. is directed adjudged limiting preventing or liable for the financial and accidents, hardships from the and in four instanc- economic which often attend es, police reports concerning highway en acci- This measure accidents. courages unequivocally adequacy dents fi indicate tests persons driving coverage their cars were victims nancial resources available for culpable potential resulting of the accidents rather than losses from acci parties. statutory plaintiffs None of the thus ad carried dents. scheme liability although insurance, protection automobile dressed of those operate already pre each was licensed to on Illinois involved in and to accidents highways properly irresponsibility and several owned vention of registered among parties mishaps. automobiles. provisions As a result of their in the involvement The basic of the statute are insurance, deposits requirements accidents and their lack of plaintiff post each secu- fi- was ordered to event accident rity, varying in amounts from to nancial the future. $600 $2,300. plaintiff requirements Each also en- was Satisfaction of these substantially specifically identical. Plaintiffs their clial relate yet pertinent, changes lenge Where 7-201, 7-202, effective shall noted. The refer, however, references the cur- rently amendments, effective enacted July 1, effective P.A. the Financial of merits of sanction of

forced registra- range owners Law wide of vehicle operator’s license operators present no immediate who tion. irresponsibility, in- threat of financial machinery specific administrative existing cluding adequate in- those with begins Depart- when statute arrangements bonding surance or Buildings re- Works and ment of Public no con- whom there is realistic those for involv- report accident of an ceives resulting tingency property death, injury, or personal particular accident.4 damage If the De- of $100.3 excess Having applicability determined death, personal in- partment finds Depart requirements, damage the Act’s prop- jury, or more $250 Secretary of certify ment to the must Department sustained, erty the has been or operator such name of each State the particular the whether determine must owner and the amount of the operator to whom one or owner Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, necessary. Ch. deemed apply. 7- Act provisions of the purpose 95½, this secu- of 7-201. excepts require- § the expressly from or the of by To the driver owner Reports “8. un motorists filed must be days in motor vehicle involved an accident a ten der such circumstances injury damage Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, was no or any wherein of such accident. person property 11-406, or of caused 95½, The most Ch. §§ any July amendments, or other than such driver one effective recent owner; 1971, require reports to be filed Secretary the the To driver or owner of State rather than “9. the of with Department which time of a motor vehicle at the Public Works the of parked, Building's. have con the accident was unless such These amendments parked place the Fi was a of vehicle at where solidated the administration parking Responsibility was within the at the time of accident nancial Law the Secretary prohibited any applicable and have office of of State under law generally the of the De eliminated role ordinance. partment “10. To the of Public Works. owner of a vehicle motor if at the time of the accident vehicle per- provisions 4. The of Section 7-202 being operated permis- was without his tinent to this case state: sion, express implied, parked or was “Exceptions Requirements to Securi- of by person operating a who had been Responsibility ty wnd Proof of per- such motor vehicle without such the Future for mission. requirements security, “The as to accident, “If at the time of the an proof of for by owner or is covered driver a motor provided as policy liability meeting vehicle or bond this Sections 7-201 and requirements Act, of this such own- apply: Act shall not exempt er or driver shall be from sus- if “1. To the driver or owner such pension under Section 7-205 as to that in effect time owner had at accident, company issuing if the liability policy such accident cover- policy failed, has bond and such respect ing such driver and owner policy or bond was effective at the to in the motor vehicle involved such any time of the accident or there- time accident; after, provided, the owner or driver, “2. To the if not the owner knowledge had driver no of the com- vehicle, of such motor if there was in pany’s prior accident, failure to effect at the time of such accident a owner or driver has secured with- liability policy respect or bond with days learning in 30 of such fail- operation his of motor vehicles not liability policy ure another or bond by him; owned meeting requirements of the Act “3. the driver or owner if To relating to future occurrences or ac- liability of such or owner driver for cidents. damages resulting from such accident subsection, “As used in this the words judgment in is. ‘failed’ or ‘failure’ mean that com- Buildings, of Public Works and cov- pany suspended operations by order by any ered form of court record.” policy bond; insurance Act, bodily injury expressly in rity, motor vehicle for as stated to or judgment any any person satisfaction death in the amount insure $10,000, greater subject judgments to said limit $200 for might registrant any person operator injured killed, one in $20,000 bodily inju Ill.Rev.Stat. from the accident. the amount of for arise 7-204(A). ry 7-201(2), 95½, to or death of Ch. or more two however, provides, de any damage Act one accident and for any required may property $5,000 de posit form amount re Secretary sulting from manded one accident. Such proof not exceed minimum limits in said shall amounts shall be fur acceptable policy regis bond. insurance nished each motor 7-204(A). Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, every person tered fur § proof.” nish such The Financial re ½, referred 95 § lieves motorist or vehicle owner 7-204(C). obligation post his where According necessary contingent fol is not cover lia and the Section 7-314 lowing bility. applicable person is Thus a released when of Article III, proof Secretary furnished receives of a release liability (Section filing Secretary 7-206(A)), properly a of from with the 7-206(B)), (Section acceptable motor covenant not to sue State an certificate of adjudication insurance, duly liability evidence non- a execut of a final of (Section bond, liability 7-207), liability by depositing equiv ed a written agreement among money parties acci the State to the alent or securities with Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, 95½, pay injuries dent all claims for Ch. Treasurer. § damages seq. (Section 7- installments 7-314 et 208), arising payment judgment aof privileges of results Loss vehicular (Section 7-209). Ill. from accident of from to fulfill failure either Rev.Stat.1969, Finally, seq. 7-206 § the statute’s financial re Department’s security if demand quirements. days after re Within 30 excessive, permits Section 7-212 rede ceipt certificates of Section 7-201 termination and reduction of the amount days giving adequate and no and a refund de of remainder of tice, Secretary of automatical State Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, posit. 95½, 7- Ch. § registra ly suspends the license and/or any operator owner tion of or vehicle requirement proof security proof fi of of of future who has not filed Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, responsibility operates responsibility. nancial independ ently conjunction as well as in the Ch. 7-205. 95½, with § security requirement. The ties statute provisions The statute also contains this enforcement feature the adminis in- to affected for administrative notices machinery trative activated the reme aggrieved hearing per- dividuals protective security requirements. dial upon 7- sons their demand. Section obligation Release from the requires Public of 201.1 security thus does not relieve the motor Buildings supply detailed Works and registrant ist from of the burden security depositor of information demonstrating responsi future financial upon potential claims nature bility. Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, 95½, Ch. 7- security requirement is based. which the through required As 7-210. under Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, 95/, 7-201.1. § Ch. Act, “proof Article III of the of finan days prior to the effec- Not less cial for the future” means any suspension un- proposed tive date “ * * * Secretary ability respond 7-205, der Section damages again liability send notice thereafter State suspen- resulting impending incurred the owner- the individual ship, maintenance, operation statement use or must include sion which security Security Deposit Ill. A.

the amount Rev.Stat.1969, demanded.5 7-205(B). 95½, § Plaintiffs assert that the statute moreover, aggrieved may, motorist improperly requires hearing obtain an administrative contingent liability any inquiry without request an order or act of ei to review prospective into fault or on Department of ther the Public Works depositor. They part of the further Buildings Secretary of State. or the argue operators owners that vehicle 7-101; 95½, see § comprise only involved in one accidents also, Ch. § potentially persons. small liable class Relying upon Gulf, Fe Colorado & Santa according Finally, to Section Ellis, Ry. Co. v. suspensions under Section 7-205 666, plaintiffs L.Ed. assert any appro subject judicial review in single may out the state that class pro priate of the State as Circuit Court security require imposition for the “Administrative Review vided agree. ments. We do Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Ch. Act” of Illinois. ordered, lawfully seq. 264 et If regulation opera- of automotive still terminated safety public tion for health in accordance long peculiar lo- constituted matter Law. sensitivity. cal Problems associated operator permits or owner are, large highway safety meas- with ure, suspended to privileges have whose been clearly unique and No defined. regain by satisfying the them the hazards asso- state could overlook proof requirements After ordered. increasing ever use of ciated with the reg year license or from the date the widening seg- motor vehicles ever by the received Secre istration has been population. Special atten- ment of the tary following suspension, applicant special to these haz- solutions tion may suspension if files terminate the entirely necessary and are ards often stating an no action for affidavit that Baking Co. reasonable. See Continental damages filed him aris has been Woodring, 352, 365-366, 52 286 U.S. v. filed, ing or, if from the accident 1155; 595, Hendrick 76 L.Ed. S.Ct. longer pending. is still action no 610, 622, Maryland, 235 35 S.Ct. U.S. Rev.Stat.1969, 7-211; see Ill. § Pawloski, 140, 385; cf. Hess v. L.Ed. 59 also 632, 352, 47 L.Ed. S.Ct. 71 274 U.S. are an ev- accidents 1091. Motor vehicle They I present and serious hazard. er frequently, generally, in if result not claim Re- Plaintiffs that the Financial personal injury property for loss sponsibility Equal Pro- Law violates liability exists. These considera- tection Fourteenth Amend- general Clause importance of au- tions and They ment. contend that each of transportation in life tomotive modern statute, justify governmental two features extensive interven- proof and the of future financial private insure that tion liabilities to responsibility, an irrational establishes losses a result such acci- sustained as arbitrary these compensated classification. Since dents will be in accordance administratively provisions operate the law. with differently the statuto- somewhat persons ry independent in perform requirement The scheme and functions, they must able treat- deserve individual volved in motor accidents contingent liability aris satisfy any ment. 7A-205(B) July 1, 1970, 1969 the future. Under tbe Until requirement this inclusion of of the neces- amendments notice 1970 sity dropped. of financial been

1349 unrea its actions under this A state such an accident is not Act. legislation against necessity security de direct evils as sonable. sees dealing possible posit alternative them without all one of several Hughes Superior supplementary measures calculated abuses. Court of including mandatory end, County, California for Contra Costa achieve that 339 bonding. indemnity 460, 718, 70 U.S. S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. insurance It press permissible parte Poresky, 30, need not 290 S.Ct. Ex U.S. the limits legislation, 3, accomplish does 78 L.Ed. 152. Constitution its aim in ev ery specify Lindsley limit instance. See not solutions available v. Natural pur accomplish just Co., 61, Carbonic Gas the state to 220 U.S. Queenside Co., 337, Realty 369; poses. Ward, Hills 55 L.Ed. Cf. Roschen v. Saxl, Inc. v. U.S. S.Ct. S.Ct. 73 L.Ed. obliga 722; Imposition Optical of this L.Ed. 1096. Williamson v. Lee of Okla U.S, Inc., regard spe homa, 483, 487-488, tion without to fault 75 S. reali Gulf, cific accident is demanded Ct. 99 L.Ed. 563. Unlike Col litigation Ry. Ellis, ne ties of and administrative orado Santa & Fe Co. v. cessity. L.Ed. anticipate legislation equipped possible single all claims does out a single anticipate judicial industry imposition each resolution of for the aof Thorough liability. potential protection penalty regard without for characteris contingent permit a industry does not tics purposes claims or the Moreover, quick penalty. determination of fault. adequate upon determination of fault B. Responsi- The Proof of impose even basis would a tentative bility for the heavy Future administrative burdens agency performance of even Plaintiffs also attack the operations In most routine of the Act. requiring proof the Act of financial consumption of time terms of the sponsibility motorists involved resources, determinations automobile accidents. Plaintiffs contend might destroy value require the statute does not liabili- contemplated protection Act. ty precondi- insurance all drivers securing Certainly, complete the most licensing registration. tion to Rath- high protection affected er, they assert, imposes the re- the State way maintaining accidents and adminis quirement only upon those of insurance manageability legiti trative are both or acci- who own drive ears involved mate state interests. Their balance regard prospec- dents fault without to this case cannot said be to unreasona be liability. They argue only that tive Dandridge Williams, See ble. 397 U. require- justifiable purpose a of such 471, 484-487, S. L.Ed. S.Ct. responsibility financial ment is to assure 491; Yeager, 2d cf. Rinaldi v. 384 U.S. likely They claim to need it. for those S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d mandatory purchase of insurance that justified mere involvement cannot be reject plaintiffs’ We also claim fault, regardless accident, since of in an arbitrarily unreasonably that the Act of happenstance indication holds no imposition selects vehicle accidents for liability. negligence or future special security requirements. of these regula question importance that a There is no highway state of tion, reasonably require highway may vehicle special and the features of state financially operators justifications for to be accidents are owners and relevant security may fix such particular responsible. a state concern with precondition Moreover, to is deposits. requirement as the fact registra may provide license or identi of a state similar or suance parte Poresky, security deposits Ex cal in connection with tion. requirement L.Ed. other circumstances does not invalidate reasonable, pro- simultaneously requires security how to less valid no becomes compels persons conditions tect other ever, from the divorced when registration. licensing requirement Cf. re- observance of the initial of 95½, quiring proof responsibility a con- of as §§ may seq. rea dition seq. A state for continuation the license. 9-101 et reality scope Certainly requirement, of its sonably limit the choose reasons, regardless of of the acci- inquiry time for several the occurrence at that dent, negatived by including the manner necessities is not administrative ability expresses require- of cit which the statute to maximize desire enjoy of motor vehicles. ment. the use izens to proof feature require of this Failure violate Nor does the statute responsibility a condition as of vehicular equal protection in the manner in which does license issuance initial require it enforces and administers the expect suggest responsibility responsibility. The ment of financial part safe of motor as ed or demanded together statutory ties scheme constitutionally may de ty. The state requirements deposit and requirement of of its mand observance proof responsibility. of future financial ex responsibility to the same financial sought responsibility Proof of initial requires other it observance tent as ly substantially all motorists regulations toward directed rules registrants involved in the accident for safety. a valid traffic Continuation contingent. liability may whom Ill. be upon satis conditioned license Rev.Stat.1969, just it requirement, as faction may such potentially lack Those liable who adherence conditioned adequate responsibili available financial requirement reasonable ty in accordance with the Act then sobriety operator. In each as an supply case, disregard rule becomes of financial leading suspen subsequent condition future. of the license. sion or revocation accident, certainly After an it is rea- Contrary plaintiffs’ conten inquiry sonable for a state conduct Responsibili tions, the Illinois any person into the financial status ty demand maintenance Law does not potentially involved in the accident or only indemnity bonds insurance consequence. liable as a Where the involved in an auto those who have been state finds that its v. Ca Unlike Smith mobile accident. ignored, quirements have been it is also hoon, 75 L. government reasonable for the to act to discloses scheme Ed. remedy and correct A situation. re that Illinois law demands rule no state violates constitutional sponsibility of all licensed drivers here, where, requires one found financially registrants. excepting By noncomplianee to demonstrate that responsible from the statuto individuals brought himself the rules as ry machinery, reveals that driving of a condition continuation presupposes operation of Act the the privileges. person part in on the failure gener- comply with volved the accident administers a the statute Since motorists, requirement. initial Because of the is no requirement that there of al compliance to proof that of determination need to limit expecta likely fulfill the individual cannot deemed most be motorists those Indeed, Act responsibility, tion of financial accidents. future involved statutory alternative, quires consid- The third constitutional no different only equivalent eration, small class applies of with unwilling provided to main- of or unable Treasurer as under Ill.Rev.Stat. motorists indemnity bonding. 1969, 7-314(3)1, 7-323, 7-329, tain insurance

1351 upon such a limitation the state’s au- II thority proof to demand of future finan- Plaintiffs also contend that the Finan- cial from those who have Law, Responsibility cial both on its face lacking fruitlessly been found would un- applied, process and as denies due of policy requirement of dermine law. Moreover, might itself. a state reason- Regarding itself, plaintiffs the statute ably choose to avoid the dubious benefit argue privilege owning of attempting predict liability. of future operating a motor is a valuable postpone requiring A state not could right may removed be without completion until of some after prior hearing. They argue litigation. subsequent formal An at- factual determinations of tempt speedy at administrative determi- Department of Public Works and Build- liability nation fault would be ings as the basis for are ad- equally unsatisfactory. impose It would judicatory facts which deter- imponderable administrative burdens. only hearing. mined after such a We proceeding suscep- Such a would also be disagree. pos- inconsistency error or tible to with adjudication. Moreover, sible later Regardless of the technical finding early an value of administrative classification of drivers’ licenses ve fault for one accident as a registrations “privileges” hicle under driving forecast conduct is it- law, subject state these interests are might questionable. self A state well protections the Due Process conclude that such a decision add would Clause Fourteenth Amendment. nothing accuracy little of a King, 878, (1st Wall v. F.2d 882 Cir. prediction upon based mere involvement 1953), denied, 915, certiorari 346 U.S. in an accident. 275, process 74 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed. 411. Due however, not, require prior does adver conclude, therefore, sary hearing sig We in all cases which a challenged provisions of the private jeopardized nificant interest arbitrarily government do regulatory Bour action. impose require jois, 189, 183, Chapman, Inc. v. 301 U.S. reg ments class licensees 1027; Phillips 57 S.Ct. 81 L.Ed. see statutory Revenue, istrants. scheme is rea v. Commissioner of Internal legitimate sonably related in to a state 283 U.S. L.Ed. S.Ct. 1289; terest in the financial of motor Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers ists within its Union, borders. The statute McElroy, etc. v. legislative appropriate demonstrates Goldberg 1230; S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d cf. attempt to harmonize interests Kelly, v. U.S. necessities, practical with the adminis 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d constitution safety highway tration standards. ality particular statutory proce agree We courts those which have dures must be determined consid previously upheld constitutionality stake, eration of the at interests features similar private governmental, func and the Newton, attack. v. Williams evidentiary tion de and character Fla., 98; Mealey, 236 So.2d cf. Reitz v. terminations which must made. 21; 86 L.Ed. privilege operation owner- Quetawki Prentice, F.Supp. 737, ship unquestionably of a motor vehicle (D.C.N.M.1968); MacQuarrie enjoyment a substantial interest. Its (D.C. McLaughlin, F.Supp. 294 176 terms, necessary may, practical be a Mass.1968), per curiam, affirmed 394 adjunct enjoyment many to full 1224, 456, 417; U.S. 89 22 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d derogat- rights. fundamental Without Tynan, (D.C. F.Supp. Perez v. 307 1235 ing however, importance, from its Conn.1969). right operate or motor vehicle own

1352 fault, questions difficult equated such involve necessities be cannot require traditionally ev- Kelly, extensive rights 397 which (Goldberg v. as welfare including inquiry, 1011, identiary confronta- 254, 264, 25 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 90 U.S. witnesses, adversary Family cross-exami- wages (Sniadach Fi tion of v. 287), 1820, present nation, opportunity 337, 89 and Corp., S.Ct. 395 U.S. nance Goldberg Kelly, 397 U. employment 349), itself evidence. Cf. v. or L.Ed.2d 23 1011, Higher 25 L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. Educa S. (Slochower v. Board 287; 637, L. Committee on Character 551, 100 Willner v. tion, U.S. 76 S.Ct. 350 1175, Fitness, 96, and 373 U.S. 83 S.Ct. 692). ability this to utilize Ed. 224; McElroy, 360 mobility 10 Greene v. is L.Ed.2d also sus particular means of 1400, generally, 474, L.Ed.2d 79 S.Ct. 3 equation U.S. ceptible to travel easily (cf. are ascertain- Most issues v. factual Kent international whether able, ac- 1113, of the 116, as determinations Dulles, L. 2 78 S.Ct. 357 U.S. ownership operation (Edwards of a vehicle tual 1204) or v. interstate Ed.2d 164, 160, applicability of California, 86 62 S.Ct. 314 U.S. quirements Thompson, 119; under 7-202. Shapiro Section v. L.Ed. 600). determinations, 1322, in- 618, most factual L.Ed.2d difficult S.Ct. U.S. rights volving potential protected claims amount constitutional Nor are by security deposit, adversely estimates privileges affected are nature, approximations. By v. their governmental Cf. Slochower action. solution, Higher Education, adapt and while U.S. do not clear Board of 692; nature, adjudicative 557, 637, are not benefited 551, L.Ed. 76 S.Ct. provision Refugee for a fac- each instance v. Committee Joint Anti-Fascist hearing 624, level. 123, at the administrative tual McGrath, 71 S.Ct. 341 U.S. L.Ed. provide for de not The statute does interest, The state’s on the other deposit to be termination of hand, is also See substantial. Wall ex solely upon the made in vacuo King, 1953). (1st 206 F.2d 878 supplied Cir. parte adver in an information summary suspension Concededly, in such sary’s report. accident necessary protect is cases requires made the determinations to be safety an imminent threat wel independently Department “as community. Ewing v. fare of the Cf. receipt of practicable soon Mytinger Inc., Casselberry, & reports 339 U.S. report.” Such [an accident] 1088; 70 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. Cafe must, participat initially, filed all Union, teria & Restaurant etc. Workers Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, 95½, drivers. McElroy, 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. reports de 11-406. Additional 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d fi 1230. Assurance of drivers, manded from witnesses part nancial on the mo police officers. is, however, important part torists an in In those regulation state of motor vehicle trans sup the information stances which portation. Mealey, See Reitz v. plied incomplete, inadequate, or con 21; parte 26 L.Ed. Ex Department clearly tradictory, must Poresky, L. pursue inspection actual of the protection Ed. 152. The state’s damage involved, property other certainly economic needs of motorists independently the facts. wise determine great weight. merits Having completed its initial determina tions, “send, by Department must important, instance, Most in this mail, person required to the nature of the factual determinations potential security, itemization of each upon based, which and the property injury personal claim of statutory procedures judicial review knowledge damage De aggrieved parties. available to the partment the determina determinations made Buildings Ill. Public is based.” Works and do tion of

1353 Rev.Stat.1969, Vehicles, Department 7-201.1. 95½, Ch. Sec v. State of Motor § permits 870, (1950); tion 7-212 of the turn 35 Cal.2d 1 Law 222 P.2d Ad- City Pocatello, Department 99, the reduce the amount of ams v. 91 Idaho (1966); King, ordered 6 months 416 after P.2d 46 cf. Wall v. (1st 1953); the date of the accident. Ill.Rev.Stat. 206 F.2d 878 Cir. Perez v. Finally, Tynan, F.Supp. (D.C.Conn. 95½, Ch. 7-212. Sec 1235 § agencies 1969); Quetawki Prentice, the here tion instructs F. heárings upon “provide Supp. (D.C.N.M.1968); general- for involved to see aggrieved by ly, request order or Law Davis —on Administrative (Treatise), (1959). the Public acts of Works 7.08-7.10 §§ Buildings Secretary and and of the Although the features under Section.” Ill.Rev.Stat. adequate, themselves are is evident 7-101; also, 95½, see Ch. Ch. § attempt that no has been the made aggrieved 95½, 2-117. Thus the indi § agencies responsible state for adminis only prompt notifica vidual receives provisions tration of these to effectuate Department’s tion of the results of hearing procedures. and notice object investigation, and but also hearings requested When been have receive relief. administrative aggrieved persons, have been regardless ignored, refused per provisions These will not significance dispute factual hearing adjudicatory mit a full presented. apprised have We been disputed prior suspen facts to effective present hearing pro of no existence They do, however, provide sion. no satisfy cedures which would the statuto detailing proposed tice for the the bases ry Ill.Rev command of Section 7-101. suspension and orders. Avenues Although .Stat.1969, 95½, Ch. § through affected motor exist which the agencies permits that same Section may express objections ist his and be regulations adopt which rules prior heard. These both to and occur might hearing procedures which fashion Department’s factual determi specific aptly issues would deal with nation, hearing through access to a necessary, hearing would stage otherwise. At the ad no has been taken. Under such action proceedings ministrative circumstances, it is clear that might administratively delayed order applying conduct of defendants Department’s re retracted. challenged Responsibility Financial sponse objections to these and its final the statute. contravenes subject determinations to immediate are judicial review, including stay of the decision, appropriate circuit III court. 7- foregoing In accordance 102; seq.; cf. Porter adjudged opinion, that: it is ordered Syndicate, v. Investors requested 1. declaration light 617, 76 In L.Ed. 1226. the Illinois perforce approximate na tentative of the Process Law is in violation Due Department’s highly ture of the discre Equal Protection Clauses tionary determinations, the. administra of the Amendment United Fourteenth tive to those individ measures available is denied. States Constitution judicial involved, re uals and the swift requested injunction available, conclude the stat view we enforcement further proc utory due scheme not violate does challenged provisions statute See, Warren, g., ess of Larson v. law. e. denied. per (Fla.S.Ct.1961, 132 So.2d hereby ordered curiam), appeal for want of a Defendants dismissed fully the and observe question, to effectuate substantial federal Re- 7; Illinois Financial L.Ed.2d Escobedo driving hearing equivocally they that granting a sponsibility Law addition, of the acci- their the victims persons; de- ears were aggrieved in to actually dents, were re- while the claimants present on to are ordered fendants by required plaintiffs single at All were judge fault. court mand to the post in being the defendants to es- are procedures have or that $2,300, varying compliance amounts to implement $600 to tablished required purchase financial were with this order. compliance in insurance the of of the nature Because challenged provisions. ar- The with the aggrieved persons potentially of class required bitrariness de-. of statutory provisions, and under these plain- posits demonstrated two is well past inequities of of the because plaintiff this court. tiffs before disregarding the statu in defendants $2,- Taylor post was Sarah tory Illinois Financial of the mandate although security, was she subse- Law, are defendants only quently the claimant sued hereby in notice to include ordered plaintiff Harold Witt was $740. pursuant suspension required of although post security, quired $850 7-205(B) Fi Illinois of the received later sued the claimant and (Ill.Rev. Responsibility Law nancial produce Inability to settlement.1 $700 7-205(B)) Stat.1969, 95½, § revo- necessary in funds resulted informing li complete statement motor ve- of driver’s licenses and cations rights registrant of his censee registrations in here. hicle issue judi hearing agency and to before allege plaintiffs have suffered cial review. irreparable conse- harm of their because dissolved, This Court is quent mobility. of loss The character of single judge case is remanded inability con- such harm varies from and, judgment effectuate this court to requir- employment tinue established appropri- necessary, if to award family mobility impairment of ate relief. undisputed recreational activities. It plaintiffs requests for hear- ROBSON, Judge (dissenting). Chief ignored informally ings de- have been below, am forth I For the reasons set The defend- nied the defendants. challenged provi- opinion that the concerning the revoca- ants’ decisions Responsi- sions the Illinois Financial parte and made tions issue were ex bility Law are unconstitutional. Since solely upon unverified were based thoroughly de- reports other motorists. accident majority opinion, I shall scribed in the my issue discussion restrict great mobility, driver’s In this era of constitutionality. registrations are un licenses impor deniably representative plaintiffs interests. The All of the valuable right operate an to own and their automobiles were involved in acci- tance of the health, contemporary wel dents which another motorist filed automobile to life, claiming injury pursuits report damages fare ex- and economic hearing necessity ceeding plaintiffs of a the constitutional None $100. safeguards damages adjudged procedural before were liable and other ever spe right, arising have been out the accidents which were revocation recognized years. cifically in recent the cause recovation their driver’s Killingsworth, registrations. 93 Ariz. licenses or motor vehicle Schecter (1963); People concerning v. No reports Police accidents 380 P.2d thaus, P.2d plaintiffs 147 Colo. four indicate un- ordinary expensive plaintiffs lia- 1. Counsel for automobile also contended during bility However, hearing the contention insurance. on this matter pleadings. not documented insurance more was Fletcher, Wignall policy. (1961); N.Y. social pro Because Illinois could (1952). 435, ownership 103 N.E.2d 728 hibit use and of automobiles coverage, without of insurance it may Certainly enact licens- the State rights may does not follow that these be ing registration requirements to and selectively proce denied without fair against public protect and reckless dures. Cafeteria Restaurant Work financially irresponsible motorists. Union, AFL-CIO, ers Local 473 v. al. However, requirements must meet McElroy, 886, 1743, 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. standards. When basic constitutional (1961); L.Ed.2d 1230 Greene Mc v. person requirements forth set meets the Elroy, 474, 1400, 360 U.S. 79 S.Ct. 3 L. laws, licensing registration (1959). Ed.2d 1377 Where the interest may enjoyment full continue destroyed taken or is a valuable or es rights those until has established it been one, op sential portunity reasonable notice and an by of those that rights reason of his abuse prior taking to be heard to cause, just it or other is Goldberg Kelly, must be afforded. safety public revoke those interest of 254, 1011, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d Responsi- rights. Illinois Financial (1970); Family Sniadach v. Fi effectively right bility divests the Corp., 337, 1820, nance 395 U.S. 89 S.Ct. per- or own automobiles drive (1969). say 23 L.Ed.2d To that a deposit secu- cannot sons who afford prior hearing administrative to consider by covering rity claims asserted question potential of fault or liabili may motorists, inflated claims which be ty begs is unfeasible the issue. We are fictitious, additionally, who can- dealing emergency not situation purchase in- financial short, not where immediate revocations of driver’s plaintiffs are In surance. these registrations licenses or motor vehicle right solely denied a because valuable necessary protect public. are deed, In regard status, without their economic public protected is far less may danger they any considerations of against reckless, insured motorist safety. may pose public If statutory under this is scheme it requirements imposed burdensome only upon against non-negligent uninsured, mo motorists, the a select class torist of limited A ha financial means. by is selected class method which that bitually negligent reckless or who driver a rational basis. must have against adequately is insured or whom a state plaintiffs concede report fortuitously an accident never liability in compel purchase of may filed, been does not lose his license un precondition to issuance surance as a “moving less he is convicted vio three of twelve-month regis or motor vehicle driver’s licenses period. lations” compulsory insurance Such trations. 6-206(a) Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Ch. 95½ applies on a nondiscrimi to all motorists perspective, (2). Viewed in this Poresky, g., parte natory E. Ex basis. fundamentally procedures of the unfair 78 L.Ed. 54 S.Ct. 290 U.S. challenged provisions are of constitution as requiring insurance (1933). Statutes recognize al licensing dimensions. precondition to neg every capable of fact that ligence, driver plaintiffs that a mo also concede thereby protect negligent, adjudicated or found torist negligence by potential all public likely an administrative to be at fault Geo.Wash.L.Rev. See 30 motorists. agency a hear after notice and or state (1962). has not enacted Illinois principles due consistent with legislation, compulsory how insurance prove his may process,2 a matter as desirable ever liability. hearing potential would hearing contemplated Such 2. The administrative formality, then, empty nominally prescribed insofar majority, be an objections Law, asserted the constitutional the Financial plaintiffs questions are concerned. would not consider of fault large of those numbers include order Morey v. whom it is unreasonable. regis- his license or tain driver’s Cahoon, Doud, supra; supra; Smith v. classifica- tration. This a reasonable Texas, 233 U.S. Smith have demonstrated tion motorists who (1914). 58 L.Ed. negligence operation ownership in the g., E. Reitz v. Meal- an automobile. imposing provisions, In its restrictive ey, 86 L.Ed. challenged scheme here (1941). Similarly, the classification separate attempt at those makes no failing judgments persons satisfy causing from those fault accidents negligent ownership arising from use or culpable not at The innocent fault. a of an rational basis. automobile Re- in the same manner. are treated MacQuarrie McLaughlin, F.Supp. v. rights driving stricting the victim aff’d U.S. (D.Mass.1968), a to bear cannot be said an accident (1969). 1224, 22 L.Ed.2d 417 S.Ct. protection proper just or relation to the rendering By or considerations fault negli- irresponsible, public from of gent immaterial, Illinois Finan- being party Merely drivers. Responsibility the ration- cial Law lacks accident, having one’s car involved present in the Reitz and Mac- al basis accident, probative of is fault in an not Quarrie decisions. self-serving liability. acci- Nor is Equal Protection of the Clause report interested dent filed another requires Fourteenth Amendment statutory party. con- scheme under just legislative bear classification any criteria forth sideration does set purpose proper to the for relation persons of those for determination Doud, Morey v. made. applies in- statute which the 1344, 1 L.Ed.2d is no There an accident.3 volvement Cahoon, (1957); Smith requir- necessity apparent for reason (1930). 567, 51 L.Ed. 1264 ing who owner a driver or automobile legislative purpose apparent blameless victim have been the Responsibility Law Illinois Financial negligence fi- either another’s show negligent public that driv- to assure the his driv- or forfeit nancial ers, e., likely and be lia- i. to cause those public. rights protect in order to financially accidents, ble Nothaus, People P. 147 Colo. employed for responsible. The method (1961). of con- The absence 2d singling persons must those who out liability, siderations of fault or common bear an economic burden relating public safe- other factors driving public, may thus be and who morals, welfare, ty, health, render owning effectively prohibited from un- Illinois Financial driving rationally automobiles, must be provide fun- for failure to constitutional public protection related equal protection of the law. damental negligent irresponsible, motorists. grant declarato- I therefore would dragnet is consti- method of selection A sought ry injunctive tutionally impermissible. relief Classifications enough narrowly represent. they must drawn so plaintiffs and the class only 3. The rational basis asserted in- from use of their automobiles accident, defendants selection in one volvement whether adversely affected are the the victim of the acci- cause “poor people poor scheme is that drive dent. impliedly cars” should be banned

Case Details

Case Name: Pollion v. Lewis

Court Name: District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date Published: Nov 25, 1970

Citation: 320 F. Supp. 1343

Docket Number: 69 C 330

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Ill.