An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a village and village employees in a lawsuit filed by a firefighter claiming he was injured during a training drill. Hidalgo v. Village of Romeoville.
A village firefighter attended an advanced technician
firefighter training course. As part of that training course curriculum, participants were required to perform a “bailout
drill.” During a bailout drill, participants exit out a third-story
window of a hose tower, one leg at a time, and then use rappel line to descend
down the side of the tower. Participants could use a Class 1 harness, Class 3
pre-sewn harness, or a Class 3 “hasty” harness during the bailout drill. Class
1 harnesses are body harnesses that go around a person’s waist, while Class 3
pre-sewn harnesses are manufactured body harnesses that go around a person’s
waist and shoulders. Class 3 “hasty” harnesses are harnesses made by the
participants using available webbing, which is a tubular structure that can be
tied into a knot.
The firefighter performed the bailout drill using a Class 1 harness and was injured after
becoming separated from the harness and falling to the ground. He sued the village, claiming the village acted with “intentional/reckless
conduct” in its instructions and usage of the harnesses during the bailout
drill. He specifically claimed certain village employees involved in the training failed to provide
adequate instructions on using and creating the Class 3 “hasty” harness. He also claimed the village’s
omissions constituted negligence through willful and wanton conduct. The
circuit court ruled against the firefighter, who then appealed.
An Illinois Appellate Court upheld the circuit court’s ruling in favor of the village, relying on Section 2-201 of the Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act
(“Act”), which states as follows:
Sec. 2-201. Except as otherwise provided by Statute, a public employee serving in a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused.
That Act distinguishes between discretionary and ministerial acts
made by government employees when determining whether a government employee qualifies for immunity. The Appellate Court applied the two-prong test, which requires courts to determine (1) if the employee
holds a position involving the determination of policy or a position involving
an exercise of discretion and (2) if the employee also engaged in both the
determination of policy and the exercise of discretion when performing the act
or omission from which the injury resulted. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the government employee will have immunity under that section of the Act.
As to the village’s assistant
training course instructors, the court found that they (1) held a position requiring
an exercise of discretion as to certain aspects of the bailout drill (i.e.,
whether a Class 3 harness needed to be used) and (2) used their discretion to
decide how to secure ropes and lines to the harnesses. The court emphasized
that the assistant instructors used their own discretion, rather than adhering
to a mandate requiring them to act in a prescribed manner, in making any decisions
regarding the bailout drill. As to the village’s lead and supervising training
course instructor, the court found that they (1) held a position requiring an
exercise of discretion to decide how to conduct bailout drills based on their
knowledge and experience and (2) exercised discretion in determining that Class
3 pre-sewn harnesses were appropriate for the bailout drill. The court also found that the village was entitled to
immunity under the Act. As to the claims
of negligence by willful and wanton conduct, the court found that Section 2-201
immunity is absolute and not subject to exceptions for willful and wanton
conduct.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court upheld the circuit court ruling that both the employees and the village had immunity from the firefighter’s claims relating to his injuries.
Post Authored by Rachel Stempler & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
