MOUNT VERNON – Circuit Judge Heinz Rudolf correctly immunized St. Clair County and its 911 emergency telephone system against a wrongful death suit, Fifth District appellate judges ruled on Dec. 9.
Justices Randy Moore and Mark Boie rejected claims of Larry Schultz, estate administrator for his late wife Laurene Schultz.
Justice Milton Wharton dissented.
Larry Schultz called 911 on Oct. 22, 2017, said his wife was under the influence of alcohol, and asked for help in keeping her from driving.
He asked the dispatcher to send police to All-Mart in Mascoutah, but the dispatcher sent police to Handi-Mart.
Laurene drove to Sax’s store, and Larry called 911 again.
A dispatcher asked for the exact address and when he couldn’t give it, the dispatcher refused to help.
Laurene drove away, ran off the road, and suffered fatal injuries.
Larry sued the county and its 911 board in 2018.
To assert an exception to the Tort Immunity Act for local governments, he alleged willful and wanton disregard for the safety of Laurene and the public.
He also alleged violation of the Emergency Telephone System Act, which allows tort claims in cases of gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct.
The county and its 911 board moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming it contained insufficient allegations of willful and wanton misconduct.
The county and the board claimed nothing in the Emergency Telephone System Act outweighed the Tort Immunity Act.
Rudolf held a hearing last year and granted immunity.
Moore and Boie affirmed him, relying on a Supreme Court decision that found the Tort Immunity Act “comprehensive in the breadth of its reach.”
That decision applied the Act where no police protection was provided and where inadequate protection was provided.
Moore and Boie rejected application of the Emergency Telephone Act, finding it provides for establishment of uniform technical and operational standards.
Moore wrote that the Act’s purpose is “to govern the technical aspects of providing emergency services statewide via a 911 system.”
He found it reasonable to interpret the statute to provide immunity for failures within the infrastructure and technology.
“However, assuming that the legislature intended that an immunity be provided for misconduct on the part of dispatchers, we agree with the defendants that the provision was not designed to supersede the immunities set forth in the Tort Immunity Act,” Moore wrote.
Dissenter Wharton declared himself reluctant to conclude that the failure to dispatch wasn’t the result of failure within the infrastructure and technology.
He wrote that systems must meet specific requirements of each community.
He wrote that systems must include procedures to ensure that necessary services are dispatched when and where they are needed.
He quoted from the Act that, “the most critical aspect of the design of any system is the procedure established for handling a telephone request for emergency services.”
He wrote that a 911 system must provide call takers with immediate access to information even if they aren’t familiar with the area.
“Clearly, a 911 system cannot meet the needs of the communities it serves if its operators must rely on distressed callers to provide them with exact street addresses,” Wharton wrote.
Kevin Hoerner of Belleville represented the county.
Rhonda Fiss of Belleville represented Larry Schultz.