Court Opinion

ID: 9707466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:12:38.221066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:33.363023
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BOWMAN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In my view, routine police bicycle patrol, without more, does not qualify as a special risk that would entitle plaintiff to line-of-duty disability benefits. I also disagree with the majority’s rejection of this court’s previous decision in White v. City of Aurora, 323 Ill. App. 3d 733 (2001). As our supreme court stated in Johnson v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 114 Ill. 2d 518, 522 (1986), when determining whether a police officer’s activity involves a special risk not ordinarily assumed by a citizen in the ordinary walks of life, “[t]he crux is the capacity in which the police officer is acting.” The majority never squarely addresses the capacity in which plaintiff was acting when he incurred his injury. Instead, it relies on general risks associated with bicycle riding and possible risks that plaintiff did not actually encounter at the time he was injured. In my view, none of the risks that the majority identifies, whether real or imagined, elevate plaintiffs activities at the time of his injury to the level of a special risk. The undisputed facts of this case demonstrate that, at the time of his injury, plaintiff encountered only general risks attendant to riding a bicycle. Contrary to the majority, I am of the opinion that civilian bicyclists regularly deal with varied terrain, sometimes at night, while at the same time observing their surroundings. Hence, while I am not minimizing the importance of plaintiffs work, his actions at the time he sustained his injury did not involve a special risk that entitled him to line-of-duty disability. Additionally, there is no support in the case law for the majority’s reliance on hypothetical dangers such as falls, collisions, and encounters with “unsavory” individuals, as a basis for finding a special risk. Rather, as in Johnson, the focus should be the actual circumstances surrounding plaintiffs injury. See Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d at 522. The majority ignores the actual circumstances of this case, contrary to Johnson, and enlarges the scope of an “act of duty” to include any activity that might potentially involve a special risk. One can easily envision scenarios under which virtually any aspect of a police officer’s duties could involve a special risk. Thus, under the majority’s analysis, officers will be entitled to line-of-duty benefits every time they, while on duty, are injured while riding a bicycle, walking on a sidewalk, or riding in a car, regardless of the capacity in which they are acting at the time of the injury. Just as the legislature did not intend for the term “special risk” to include only inherently dangerous activities (see Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d at 521-22), I do not believe that it intended for “special risk” to include activities that might carry risk under hypothetical circumstances. That is why, in order to prevent the definitions of “act of duty” and “special risk” from becoming meaningless, we must look at what actually happened instead of what could have happened. There was nothing about the actual circumstances of plaintiffs injury that would elevate his activities to an “act of duty.” Even though he was injured while on duty and assigned to the bicycle patrol, he was not acting in a capacity different from that of any civilian bicyclist. The majority relies on Johnson in reversing the trial court. Johnson does not support the majority’s position for the reasons stated above and, also, because it is factually distinguishable from the case at bar. The plaintiff in Johnson was injured when he fell while crossing the street to assist a citizen who asked for help. Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d at 520. The court held that Johnson’s act of duty “was the act of responding to the call of a citizen for assistance.” Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d at 522. The facts that Johnson was called upon to assist a citizen and that he had no option but to respond were the bases of the court’s determination that the plaintiffs actions constituted an “act of duty.” Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d at 522. It is undisputed that plaintiff in the case at bar was not responding to any request for assistance, nor was he responding to any other situation that required his intervention; he was simply riding his bicycle while on patrol. Thus, the majority’s attempts to liken his activities to those of the plaintiff in Johnson are not persuasive. Last, I disagree with the majority that this court’s decision in White is at odds with Johnson. The majority criticizes White for placing undue emphasis on the precise activities the officer was performing and his discretion in performing them. The majority acknowledges that consideration of an officer’s discretion is appropriate, but believes that White improperly focused on the officer’s discretion in performing specific physical actions rather than on his discretion in performing the act of issuing a parking citation. The majority’s reasons for refuting White are unpersuasive. First, police officers generally have discretion when deciding whether to issue a citation. Thus, the analysis in White would not have been any different if the court had addressed the officer’s discretion in issuing a citation instead of his discretion in exiting his vehicle. Moreover, the officer’s exercise of discretion in exiting his vehicle was not the basis of our decision in White. White relied on the fact that the activity the officer was performing when he was injured, placing a citation on a car windshield, is one that civilians routinely perform. White, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 736. We addressed the officer’s discretion only to distinguish Johnson, upon which the officer had relied. See White, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 737. Accordingly, the majority’s criticism of White is unfounded. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the denial of line-of-duty benefits.