our first case of the day is one one seven nine five to marcus call many persons east joliet fire protection district setter at all are you ready to see that police ready and she initiated the circumstance so the court can follow where i'm going i would like to do this in different stages i would like to first address the fact that i believe that there is a duty under the e acts then i will address the public duty rule and then i will go back to other reasons why i think that there are duty but regarding the first issue to me an important issue is i do believe that there is a duty under these responsibility if there is willful and wanton and they wouldn't do so i don't think the legislature would do so under those circumstances unless they intended we had to mean exactly what it says and like to give you an example if the legislature knew that the public duty rule applies and the special duty exception applies in the legislature was aware of the fact that anytime a person initiate contact there cannot be a recovery for willful and watching conduct what that would mean is that if a person fell down the stairs at home and called nine one one for he had a stroke had a heart attack had an aneurism that ruptured was a victim of a rape at home a victim of a shooting and needed nine one one help that person would never ever ever have a cause of action if there special duty exception you would not need responsibility under the last act or e t s as a less and less unless you had a cause of action and there was a duty for the cause of action that just it just would make sense  different things i think under these circumstances or your honor look we know that your honor you cannot have a tort in this you have a duty we all accept that we all understand that i understand that it's an immunity though i'm sorry if there is a duty created in under the circumstances there legislature did not amend e t s act since donovan came down and going back to huey no what happened is this judge if i may place with this in american national bank and accident my position is the duty was created under the act otherwise there'd be no sense in having a immunity from responsibility unless you had  duty rule should apply and if the public duty rule applies the public duty rule special exception applies at the special duty exception applies and callaway where the woman was a victim of domestic violence she would not have had a cause of action with the courts at no under the domestic violence act there was a cause of action that was allowed because there was responsibility it could be imposed against police officers or wolf in one pretty important i'm sure this court i am made here into the principle that if it was abolished the public duty rule was abolished with sovereign immunity by our constitution one nine hundred seventy article thirteen section four and justice place that direct your question to the outlook isn't there a difference between immunity and duty sure there is and forgive me for being sold all but i'm saying it's the emperor's new clothes when you have a situation right here in the states where any single person who had to call nine one one medical services that could never avail themselves of a remedy if there's willful and wanton conduct i'm stating that that is sar lesser questions on that issue i think make my point is pretty clear that if we then state why i think that there could also be  we have to protect children i understand that there's not a parent in the world who wouldn't do anything for the children we must protect children we know that i'm stating though we also have a nine one one emergency setting people who all of the defendants were volunteers under the circumstances of this case the appellate court said well they really can't be volunteers because they had to perform their duties in their jobs and it's not clear to me if it's really the law because i know we know that under certain cases bouncer status was found to exist under the restatement of torts against municipal employees we employment status of the defendant to determine if they're volunteers or not but rather the scope of the undertaking and the third district also commented the injustice of all is opinion well if we if we sta volunteers have a duty under these circumstances that would override the of the dewey rule so we get back to the public duty rule but i think what we have to look at is the undertaking that the defendants were involved both or three i think we could have duties for different reasons just as i believe we could have duties because the foreseeability test i believe that we could have duties under the statute itself the comma i believe there could be a common law duty also just because hauled oral and dispatch and reported there was no patient when there was little actual basis for stating there was no punishment instead of just stating no one answers the door or something to that effect that he exceed whatever his transfer the paul to orleans dispatch if that's the case when the cause came from the neighbors from mrs mewling from reverend brown when those calls came if those calls were just at what point does it exceed the duty just as our ms my point at what point did exceed the duty if it's only to transfer the call the transferring the call would have taken place by hitting the buttons transfer the call but what lori zein did is they didn't transfer those calls she of her own volition than instead of transferring the balls as they're making to must do she gets on the phone and also her self and when she calls herself to orland dispatch full address so i think that the increased the harm the risks the harm to her in those activities were voluntary activities because that's not what she's maintaining she was supposed to do so i think we have the transfer absolutely yes or there was old all of that follows after that was oh yes or or yes or no yes or because it did not have to at the not have to occur if her job was to truly transfer the call but then when she received the where they are you do know an injustice and that's a very fair question because i was in my mind debating this thing over and over and over and over i could clearly show that that he still yet went too far i could show that or that  borland tell that second ambulance at the first and this was already there and left the my goodness that would make a heck of a lot of a difference if they knew someone was already there and left so stating that according to the restatement itself three twenty three it does not state who would applies to this way but it says the restatements as gratuitously or for consideration and it is not limited to non government employees so we don't know how far it goes so what we have to look at is what was the scope of the undertaking what were these people supposed to do and did they do something beyond that would their actions taken beyond what they were supposed to do and i'm stating when helis reported that there was no patient when there was no basis for that that was not a part of his job he should have followed his job duties and just said that we don't know if anyone this year or not no one's coming to the door and when support if her job description is as they say her job was to transfer those falls and then that hall gets routed to orland but she didn't do that she didn't transfer mrs all nor did she transfer the call from reverend brown laurie zine instead took it upon herself to paul and then gave the incomplete address so there's a distinction  discussed a number of sources of duty or what you believe would be a number of sources of duty but i think that that sidesteps these some issues if there is a duty to whom is that duty and for over one hundred thirty years in  duty breech of that duty was ation damages that's where the public duty and especially to you step on the other side is the issue of whether there are any potential defenses defenses are likewise this distinction between the two sides of the analysis in the legal or illegal analysis of the tort claim is critical because the abolition of sovereign immunity impacted only one of those si that public duty rule has been used as you say four hundred thirty year is a missile with government employees have a duty generally to the public council argues that we should look at it rather in terms of traditional duty principles and a four part part test a relationship tester for see ability to test with the harm of the doctrine that well the harm in adopting that is have another reason why the the public to the rule is not just another form of statutory or another form of community is because of with a special to the exception the words the specialty exception w arising those are squarely doing this and he belongs where you know part of the analysis to the elements of the underlying claim for liability if the public is really just center know that they're back in available because to sit there and just mirrors leave the scene without identifying themselves as available help deal with the tornado situation that was going on flies in the face of common sense it's clearly part of their validation to communicate with their dispatch center so that they know what's going on further i think given that the boundary undertaking aspect of the negligence standard i think we're beyond that given the media access that would seem to protect  paramedic's employer departments can't be the insurer of the well being of each and every individual in their departments coverage area usenet false in my opinion to the fact that we then had to fall back to the public duty aspect in a public duty analysis satisfaction of the general public reactions there could be changes in through those changes we can get changes in how people respond the public do you grow at times does serve to bar costs veterans are not every cause can be subject to redress units of local government cannot be in the business of ensuring the well being of their individual citizens they don't have the resources and if we open the floodgates to this type of of analysis for what's expectation sort of standard have you met before they're able to do it you need to do really before we get to the immunity therefore i think it's our opinion that these third pillar district did get it right when they found that the public to the rule it please the court my name is kim carney and i represent oral and fire protection district and eric johnson your honors and we respectfully submit that the harmful impact that judicial abolition of the public duty will have on local governments the vital functions they serve and ultimately on the taxpayers compels continue to hear and see to the existing role one of the most important considerations and keeping the public duty role is to preserve the already limited government resources that are available to protect the public health safety and welfare the financial burden imposed by broader exposure for liability can be expected force changes in the kind scope and level of emergency services that many municipalities will be able to offer their citizens at the very core of the separation of power powers doctrine is this principle that the court should not interfere with or second guess the policy decisions made by other branches of government particularly with regard to the proper allocation of community resources and services as the supreme court of connecticut recognized in the case sure vs town of stonington the public interest is not served by allowing a jury of lay persons with the benefit of twenty twenty hindsight to second guess the exercise of a public employees discretionary decisions if that is allowed defense costs alone will impose tremendous financial hardship and other government agencies even after an immunity applies to protect a municipality from a judgment defense costs will soar most lawsuits will survive pretrial dismissal or summary judgment motions resources and the disincentive to enter public employment as well as the burden on the judicial system that abolition of the public duty rule would bring about we respectfully submit that if those outcomes are to be rist it should be the illinois general assembly makes that decision where significant matters of social and public policy are issue this court has deferred to the legislature to create a new law for example in charles vs sig three already stated that the primary expression of illinois public and social policy should emanate from the legislature because the members of the general assembly elected by the citizen or a are the are best able to determine whether a change in the law is desirable and whether it is workable charles when i'm to state that the general assembly is the only entity with the power to weigh and properly balance the many competing societal economic and policy considerations and the tremendous exposure for liability damages and defense false that will be imposed of the public duty rule is abolished has not been factored in to fiscal planning by the illinois government by illinois government entities that are already facing significant economic challenges and pension crises given the magnitude of the consequences we submit that it should be the general assembly that decides whether  government entities of the important fiscal protections the public duty rule was intended to provide if the court has now questions for me i would like to lead by saying that the a pallies asked the courts to have firm the circuit court's decision in their favor and the decision of the  abolished by case law before the constitution safeguards are that there's we're see ability before there can be a tort claim if those wrongs of a test are met the tort immunity act is still in existence as a safeguard where unless the conduct somehow is outside the tort of unity act of isn't going to be immunity under the s act there's a safeguard there's a further safeguard we just follow the constitution article fourteen article thirteen where in the constitution where the legislature can then pass any immunity is that they want to i went to the extreme in my was a comprehensive i'm the best source of rules governing the planning and delivery an evaluation and regs of emergency medical care for the people that's what we're talking about i think there's a duty of course as i'm arguing under the council made a comment wanted the special duty doctrine exception to apply to get a wow in the port immunity they can't do that that's that's a breach of the different branches of government power that you have you can't do that you thank you for your arguments today you are excused this time