 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kawaguchi v. Gainer9/16/2005
est 2002) ("The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call *, may" " isregard regulations governing direction of movement"). More importantly for present purposes, only police vehicles may do so regardless of whether their flashing lights and siren are activated. See 625 ILCS 5/11--205(d) (West 2002). In this way, police are not just unique among motorists in general; they are unique among State emergency workers. So even if we assume that Effinger is correct that Trooper Gainer did not have her flashing lights and siren operating, this does not lessen the conclusion that she was acting in a way unique to her position. Thus, Trooper Gainer's alleged failure to operate her flashing lights and siren, far from supporting plaintiff's position, in fact undermines it.
In sum, based on applicable statutory provisions, the undisputed facts, and even the lone disputed fact, we believe that, at the time of the accident, Trooper Gainer was acting in a manner unique to her employment by the State.
None of the cases on which plaintiff relies undermines this conclusion. Indeed, most of those cases do not address sovereign immunity at all; rather, they deal with the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1--101 et seq. (West 2002)) (Tort Immunity Act). See Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill. 2d 30 (1998); Aikens v. Morris, 145 Ill. 2d 273 (1991); Carter v. Du Page County Sheriff, 304 Ill. App. 3d 443 (1999). While sovereign immunity is jurisdictional and applies to State employees (Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 157-58), the Tort Immunity Act applies only to employees of local governments, such as counties and municipalities, immunizing those employees from suits based on the negligent performance of their duties. See 745 ILCS 10/1--101.1 (West 2002); Ass'n of Mid-Continent Universities v. Board of Trustees of Northeastern Illinois University, 308 Ill. App. 3d 950, 954 (1999) ("it is apparent that the legislature specifically enacted * the Court of Claims Act to remove State institutions and their employees from the umbrella of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act"); Sneed v. Howell, 306 Ill. App. 3d 1149, 1156 (1999). Here, Trooper Gainer is an employee of the State Police. Thus, the Tort Immunity Act does not apply to Trooper Gainer, and plaintiff's reliance on cases addressing it is completely misplaced.
Plaintiff does rely on one case that deals with sovereign immunity. Plaintiff argues that Currie should control here because it is "directly on point" with the present case. Plaintiff is mistaken. The facts of Currie are complex, and we go into them here only to show that plaintiff's reliance on that case is mistaken. The Currie defendant was a state trooper assigned to patrol Interstate 80. Although his patrol area included Will County, the defendant's primary responsibility was to regulate traffic on the highway. For example, the defendant did not usually respond to calls in Joliet, which has its own police force to tend to things within the city.
According to the defendant, around 8:45 p.m. on November 25, 1985, he received a call that apparently related to an intoxicated man pounding on a trailer-home on Eastern Avenue in Joliet. Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 155. However, according to the Joliet police sergeant in charge of records, there was no record of the call. Additionally, although one of the defendant's fellow state troopers testified to overhearing a State Police dispatch directing the defendant and another trooper to Joliet, the second trooper never testified, and no record of the call was produced. Even if, as the defendant claimed, a call had come in, it did not appear th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|