Moore v. Green
848 N.E.2d 1015, 219 Ill. 2d 470, 302 Ill. Dec. 451 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a specific statute governing law enforcement duties in domestic violence cases provides limited immunity for willful and wanton misconduct, it prevails over a general statute that provides absolute tort immunity for the failure to provide police services.
Facts:
- On April 15, 2002, Ronyale White obtained an emergency order of protection against her husband, Louis Drexel.
- On May 3, 2002, Drexel entered White's home in violation of the order of protection.
- At 11:40 p.m. that night, White called 911 for police assistance, informing the operator that Drexel was violating the order and that he owned a gun.
- Chicago police officers Christopher Green and Donald Cornelius were dispatched to White's address.
- Witnesses observed the officers arrive, wait briefly in their patrol car, and then drive away without investigating or assisting White.
- Approximately five minutes after the officers departed, Drexel shot and killed White.
Procedural Posture:
- Melissa Moore, executor of White’s estate, filed a complaint against Officers Green and Cornelius and the City of Chicago in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting absolute immunity under sections 4-102 and 4-107 of the Tort Immunity Act.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants' motion to reconsider was denied, but the trial court certified the immunity question for an interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 308(a).
- The appellate court (intermediate appellate court) granted leave to appeal and answered the certified question in the negative, holding that the Domestic Violence Act's limited immunity applied.
- The defendants (appellants) petitioned for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court (highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the absolute immunity provided by sections 4-102 and 4-107 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act shield a municipality and its police officers from liability for the willful and wanton failure to enforce an order of protection, when the Illinois Domestic Violence Act provides only limited immunity for such conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fitzgerald
No. The absolute immunity provided by the Tort Immunity Act does not apply; the limited immunity provision of the Domestic Violence Act governs. When two statutory provisions conflict, the more specific and more recent provision controls. The Illinois Domestic Violence Act is a comprehensive and specific statutory scheme enacted after the Tort Immunity Act, with the express purpose of reforming the legal system's inadequate response to domestic violence. Section 304 of the Act imposes specific duties on law enforcement, and section 305 provides a corresponding limited immunity, holding officers liable for willful and wanton misconduct. To apply the Tort Immunity Act's absolute immunity would render the duties in the Domestic Violence Act mere 'precatory admonitions' and would frustrate the clear legislative intent to create enforceable duties and expand remedies for victims.
Concurring - Justice McMorrow
No. Although I agree with the majority's conclusion that the plaintiff's complaint should not be dismissed, I write separately to state my disagreement with the premise that sections 4-102 and 4-107 of the Tort Immunity Act provide absolute immunity for willful and wanton misconduct in the first place. It has long been my position that general immunity provisions, unless they explicitly state otherwise, are intended to shield only negligent conduct, not intentional or willful and wanton acts. The policy justifications for immunizing simple negligence do not extend to shielding deliberate governmental misconduct. Therefore, while the Domestic Violence Act certainly allows this suit to proceed, I believe the Tort Immunity Act itself should never be interpreted to immunize the kind of intentional bad acts alleged in this case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between the general Tort Immunity Act and more specific statutes that impose duties on public employees. It establishes that the legislature can, and in the case of the Domestic Violence Act did, create a specific exception to the broad immunities typically afforded to police. The ruling significantly strengthens the legal duties of law enforcement under the Domestic Violence Act by ensuring there is a meaningful civil remedy for willful and wanton failure to protect victims. This precedent will likely be applied in future cases where a specific statutory scheme with its own liability standard conflicts with the general Tort Immunity Act.
Unlock the full brief for Moore v. Green