Personal injury actions can arise in many different scenarios. Regardless of the circumstances, it is essential to consult with a seasoned Illinois personal injury lawyer to ensure that you are asserting your rights to the fullest extent possible. In a recent appellate decision, the court considered whether surviving relatives could recover compensation from a public entity based on allegations that the public entity failed to dispatch a 911 call in a timely manner.
In the case, the decedent was working at a convenience store that he owned located in an apartment building in Chicago. A number of individuals wearing ski masks and brandishing weapons entered the store. A pedestrian outside the store called 911. The Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) received the first call at 7:12 p.m. and a second call from the same pedestrian at 7:17 p.m. At 7:20 p.m., OEMC dispatched a police unit and two minutes later, additional units were dispatched. Upon arrival, the police found the decedent tied to a chair with a gunshot wound to the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action that proceeded through discovery until the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claim on the eve of trial. They refiled some years later alleging that the decedent was shot and killed two minutes before the officers arrived and that OEMC’s failure to dispatch police to an armed robbery in progress until eight minutes after receiving the first 911 call was willful and wonton and showed a reckless disregard for the decedent’s safety. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds. Some of the public entity defendants claimed immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. One of the defendants argued that it did not owe the decedent a duty to protect him from a third party attack and that the decedent’s death was the proximate cause of a third party’s actions. It also argued that the earlier dispatch of a police unit would have prevented his death was entirely speculative. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs appealed.
On review, the plaintiffs argued that the public entity defendants were not entitled to immunity and that the trial court mischaracterized their claims as being about police misconduct as opposed to the failure of 911 to dispatch a police unit in response to a call. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis that the defendants were immune under the Tort Immunity Act. Reviewing case law precedent, the appellate court stated that the 911 call requested police intervention in response to an armed robbery in progress and that this inherently involved police protection services pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries as a result of another person’s negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. At Therman Law Offices, we understand how painful and confusing a personal injury accident can be for you and your loved ones. We offer a free consultation to help you learn more about our firm and how we can assist you with exploring all possible legal options in your situation. To schedule your appointment, call us at 773-545-8849 or contact us online.
Related Posts
Illinois Appellate Court Explains Distinction Between Primary and Excess Insurance Coverage Policies