Duncan v. Rzonca
133 Ill. App. 3d 184, 88 Ill. Dec. 288, 478 N.E.2d 603 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who negligently causes a false emergency alarm creates a foreseeable risk of harm and owes a duty of care to a first responder who is injured while responding to that alarm. This duty extends to both a business that fails to properly secure its alarm system and a parent who fails to supervise a child known to have previously activated the alarm.
Facts:
- Between January 10 and May 19, 1983, six false alarms originated from a Hinsdale Federal Savings and Loan Association (Hinsdale Federal) facility.
- On May 13, 1983, Patricia A. Doerr's three-year-old son, Charles, activated one of these false alarms.
- On May 19, 1983, Doerr returned to the bank with her son, and a bank employee warned her about the prior incident, requesting she keep Charles away from the exposed alarm button located in a desk's knee-space.
- Shortly after the warning, another employee saw Charles near the alarm button, but the boy had already pushed it, activating another false alarm.
- Alan Duncan, a Naperville police officer, responded to the alarm believing a robbery was in progress.
- While driving his squad car to the bank, Duncan was forced to swerve to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
- Duncan's car struck a telephone pole, causing him to sustain personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Alan Duncan filed a personal injury complaint against Hinsdale Federal Savings and Loan Association and Patricia A. Doerr in the circuit court of Du Page County (trial court).
- Both defendants filed motions to dismiss the counts against them for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the counts with prejudice, finding the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury and the harm was not foreseeable.
- Plaintiff Alan Duncan appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a bank that fails to secure a silent alarm button and a parent who fails to supervise her child, resulting in the child triggering a false alarm, owe a duty of care to a police officer who is subsequently injured in a traffic accident while responding to that alarm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Unverzagt
Yes. A bank that negligently maintains an alarm system and a parent who negligently fails to control her child both owe a duty of care to a police officer injured while responding to a resulting false alarm. The court reasoned that the risk of a traffic accident during an emergency response is foreseeable. The bank had a duty because the alarm's condition and the failure to prevent its activation were a contributing cause of the injury; the burden of securing the alarm was minimal compared to the risk. The mother, Patricia Doerr, had a duty under the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, as she was specifically warned of her son's prior conduct and had the ability and opportunity to control him. The 'fireman's rule' does not bar recovery because the officer's injury stemmed not from the inherent risks of a real emergency, but from the unreasonable risk created by a negligently caused false alarm.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the scope of duty owed to emergency responders, moving beyond the traditional confines of premises liability and the 'fireman's rule.' It establishes that negligently creating the reason for an emergency response (a false alarm) is a basis for liability, even if the injury occurs off-premises. The court's focus on the 'falsity' of the alarm as creating an 'unreasonable' risk is significant, distinguishing it from the inherent and accepted risks of responding to a genuine emergency. This precedent holds private parties accountable for their failure to take reasonable precautions that result in unnecessarily endangering first responders.
Unlock the full brief for Duncan v. Rzonca