 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kawaguchi v. Gainer9/16/2005
at it involved an emergency. For his part, the defendant at first made contradictory statements about whether he felt the call involved an emergency. Then, he admitted he did not believe that it had. Nevertheless, the defendant decided to respond to the call.
The supreme court affirmed the jury verdict against the defendant individually. Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 168. The court began by setting out the framework for its analysis. First, the court held that sovereign immunity deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction over suits against a State employee only if the employee was charged with breaching a duty that was "imposed on him solely by virtue of his State employment." (Emphasis in original.) Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 159. Second, the court noted that claims based on a State employee's negligent operation of a motor vehicle were generally outside the scope of sovereign immunity. The reason for this, the court said, was that "negligence that arises from the ordinary operation of a motor vehicle is based on the breach of the duties every driver owes to every other driver." (Emphasis added.) Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160. However, the court stressed that there were exceptions to this general rule. Specifically, it stated that, "in some circumstances, a State employee's manner of operating a vehicle may be so unique to his employment that a lawsuit aimed at his negligent driving could operate to control the actions and policies of the State." Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 160, citing Campbell v. White, 207 Ill. App. 3d 541 (1991).
The court concluded that such circumstances were not present on Currie's "particular facts." Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 166. To begin with, the court said, there were no records that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was responding to a call for assistance. And even assuming he was, doing so was not part of his normal and official duties. The defendant was a state trooper responsible for dealing with traffic on the interstate; responding to a minor drunken disturbance in Joliet was the province of the Joliet police. Further, even assuming the defendant was responding to a call, and even assuming he had any real business doing so, there was no evidence that the call had involved an emergency. Indeed, taken together, the defendant's actions negated any suggestion that that was the case. The court concluded that at the time of the accident the defendant was not engaged in anything unique to his position. On the contrary, he was basically just driving along. See Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 164.
Currie is almost completely distinguishable from the present case. Here, unlike in Currie, it is undisputed that Trooper Gainer received a call for assistance. Moreover, here, unlike in Currie, the undisputed evidence establishes that Trooper Gainer was responding to an emergency. Again, this includes the undisputed fact that State Police policy required Trooper Gainer to treat as an emergency a call of an accident with injuries; that, after receiving the call, Trooper Gainer abruptly discontinued a traffic stop and took off on the quickest route to the accident scene; and that she did so in a manner statutorily authorized for emergency responses (see 625 ILCS 5/11--205(b), (c)(4) (West 2002)).
The lone disputed fact--that is, that Trooper Gainer may not have had her flashing lights and siren on--cannot undermine all of this undisputed evidence. This is especially so since, as a police officer, Trooper Gainer was uniquely privileged to respond to emergencies without her flashing lights and siren on. See 625 ILCS 5/11--205(d) (West 2002). Further, here, unlike in Currie, responding to such emergencies was part of Trooper Gainer's normal duties. In sum, Currie is very differe
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.
|
|