Hicks v. City of O'Fallon, 5-18-0397
| Decision Date | 28 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-18-0397,5-18-0397 |
| Citation | 2019 IL App (5th) 180397,147 N.E.3d 152,438 Ill.Dec. 883 |
| Parties | Jeremy HICKS and Isaiah Sampson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF O'FALLON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jeremy A. Gogel, of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellants.
Brian M. Funk, of O'Halloran, Kosoff, Geitner & Cook, LLC, of Northbrook, for appellee.
¶ 1 On November 11, 2015, an ambulance, driven by a paramedic employed by the City of O'Fallon, Illinois (City), was involved in a single vehicle accident.1 Plaintiffs Jeremy Hicks and Isaiah Sampson, a minor with cerebral palsy, were passengers in the ambulance and sustained injuries. Hicks and Sampson initially filed separate complaints, but the circuit court later consolidated the cases.
¶ 2 The City filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) there was a lack of evidence of willful and wanton conduct on the City's part and (2) Hicks's claim was time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Following the circuit court's judgment in favor of the City, the plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 On November 11, 2015, Richard Palmer and Terry Sill, two paramedics employed by and in acting in their capacity as employees of the City, arrived at Sampson's guardian's home in Shiloh, Illinois, following a report of a seizure-like episode. It was determined that Sampson needed further care at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital (Cardinal Glennon) in St. Louis, Missouri. Sill drove the ambulance while Hicks, Sampson's uncle, sat in the passenger seat and Palmer rode in the back of the ambulance with Sampson. While driving westbound on Interstate 64 towards St. Louis, Sill lost control of the ambulance, struck wire barriers, hit water in a median, and ran off the road.2
¶ 5 On December 15, 2016, Hicks filed a complaint, alleging the City had negligently and carelessly (1) operated the ambulance at a speed greater than reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions and (2) failed to concentrate on driving, appreciate the road conditions, and keep a proper lookout.3 As a result, Hicks suffered pain and injuries to his head, neck, and back, as well as muscle and tissue damage and trauma. Due to his injuries, Hicks incurred numerous medical expenses.
¶ 6 On January 24, 2017, the City filed a motion to dismiss Hicks's claim with prejudice. The City claimed that Hicks had failed to file his complaint before the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 8-101(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) ( 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a) (West 2016)). Shortly thereafter, Hicks filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The circuit court granted Hicks's motion and determined, without explanation, that the City's pending motion to dismiss was moot.
¶ 7 On March 20, 2017, Hicks filed an amended complaint, alleging the City's employee lost control of the ambulance, ran off the road, and struck a tree because the ambulance was traveling at an unsafe speed during heavy rainfall. Hicks also asserted that the "ambulance ride arose out of patient care to [Sampson]," and the City's employees provided patient care to Sampson during the transport to Cardinal Glennon. Hicks argued that the City's employees demonstrated an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for his and Sampson's safety, thus, violating the duty they owed the plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate cause of the accident, Hicks suffered injuries to his head, neck, and back, as well as tissue trauma and damage.
¶ 8 On April 13, 2017, the City filed a motion to dismiss Hicks's amended complaint. The City asserted that Hicks's claim was time-barred under section 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act ( 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a) (West 2016)). The City argued that even though section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act (
745 ILCS 10/8-101(b) (West 2016)) created a two-year statute of limitations exception, it was limited to injuries "arising out of patient care." According to the City, neither Hicks nor Sampson were patients of the City, and even if the term "patient" referred to persons being treated and transported by emergency personnel, Hicks's injuries did not arise out of patient care because he was not "the person receiving care" in the ambulance.
¶ 9 Following a hearing on the City's motion to dismiss, the circuit court directed the City to file a reply in support of its motion on or before June 23, 2017, which the City timely filed. The City argued that Hicks's argument had "absolutely no merit" because the Illinois General Assembly clearly delineated section 8-101(b) of the Tort Immunity Act to apply to patients receiving care in public hospitals, not to nonpatients riding in ambulances. Next, the City argued that Hicks, by his own admission, did not personally receive medical care at the time of the injury and was not injured as a result of negligent medical care. As such, the City asserted that the two-year statute of limitations period was inapplicable because Hicks's injuries resulted from a traffic accident.
¶ 10 On June 27, 2017, Hicks filed a response to the City's motion to dismiss. Hicks, relying on Wilkins v. Williams , 2013 IL 114310, 372 Ill.Dec. 1, 991 N.E.2d 308, asserted that "[j]ust like it would be illogical to allow a third party a greater right of recovery than a patient as a result of the same occurrence, it would be illogical to allow a patient a greater right of recovery than a third party as a result of the same occurrence." Specifically, Hicks argued that the City was liable for his damages because his injuries occurred while the City's employee provided patient care to Sampson. That same day, the circuit court denied the City's motion to dismiss.
¶ 11 On July 10, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion for certified questions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. July 1, 2017), requesting the circuit court certify the following questions for appellate review:
¶ 12 On July 17, 2017, the circuit court set a hearing for August 9, 2017, on the parties' joint motion for certified questions. The record does not contain the circuit court's order granting or denying the joint motion.
¶ 13 On August 11, 2017, the City filed an answer to Hicks's amended complaint. The City admitted that Hicks and Sampson were passengers in an ambulance that was involved in a vehicle accident on November 11, 2015. The City denied, however, the following: (1) the ambulance ride arose out of patient care to Sampson; (2) the City's employees provided care to Sampson while transporting Hicks and Sampson to the hospital; (3) it was raining heavily during the transport, and, given the conditions on the roadway, the ambulance was driven at an uncontrollable speed; (4) the City's employee driving the ambulance lost control of the vehicle before it ran off the road and struck a tree; (5) as a direct and proximate result of the accident, Hicks sustained physical and emotional damages and incurred medical expenses; (6) the City's employees acted in a willful and wanton manner; and (7) the City's employees showed an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for Hicks's safety in operating the ambulance.
¶ 14 In addition to the City's denials, it also asserted three affirmative defenses. Because the City was a local public entity, as defined by section 1-206 of the Tort Immunity Act ( 745 ILCS 10/1-206 (West 2016) ), the City stated the following: (1) Hicks was required to file his claim within one year of the alleged accident; (2) the City and its employees were not liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle, including transportation of a person to a medical facility; and (3) the City was not liable for the acts or omissions of its employees where no liability was present. The City requested immunity from liability and dismissal of Hicks's amended complaint with costs.
¶ 15 On November 3, 2017, Sampson, represented by the same counsel as Hicks, filed a complaint against the City, asserting that his ambulance ride to Cardinal Glennon arose out of patient care. According to Sampson, the driver operated the ambulance at an unsafe speed during heavy rain. As a result, Sampson sustained injuries after the driver lost control of the ambulance, ran off the road, and struck a tree. Shortly thereafter, Sampson filed a motion to consolidate his case with Hicks, which the circuit court granted.
¶ 17 On February 1, 2018, Hicks testified to the following in a discovery deposition. Since 2010, Hicks had been an ad specialist at the East St. Louis Monitor Newspaper. At the time of the deposition, Hicks had been looking for work as a welder, but his "injury actually inhibits me from seeking out anything else, because I have like these muscle spasms to where I can't feel * * * my hands."
¶ 18 Hicks explained that his mother called 9-1-1 on November 17, 2015, after Sampson had multiple seizures. Once the paramedics arrived, Sampson was placed on a gurney and wheeled to the ambulance. While seated in the passenger seat, Hicks viewed Sampson in the back of the ambulance with an oxygen mask across his face. The straps across Sampson's chest were not strapped down completely...
To continue reading
Request your trial