Court Opinion

ID: 9860473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:23:04.514376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:50.092025
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BRESLIN, specially concurring: I agree that the defendants did not violate section 11— 1303(a)(l)(k) of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (625 ILCS 5/11— 1303(a)(l)(k) (West 1992).) However, I base my conclusion on trial testimony which established that the State Police directed the defendants to proceed to the scene of the accident, thus triggering the exception which allows stopping or parking between the roadways of a divided highway “at the direction of a police officer.” Section 11 — 1303(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code prohibits stopping or parking on any controlled access highway “[ejxcept when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or other official traffic-control device.” (625 ILCS 5/11 — 1303(a) (West 1992).) Here it was undisputed that the State Police had been notified of the car in the median and had arranged to meet the defendants at the scene. By indicating that an officer would meet the defendants at the scene, the State Police implicitly directed the defendants to proceed there. Thus, the defendants’ presence at the scene was “at the direction of a police officer.” By holding that a tow truck may stop or park in the area between roadways of a divided highway “when such stopping or parking is necessary to provide aid to a disabled vehicle,” the majority effectively adds that phrase to the “except” clause of section 11 — 1303(a). Moreover, it provides an exemption for tow trucks, contrary to express language found elsewhere in the statute. See 625 ILCS 5/11— 205(c) (West 1992) (authorized emergency vehicles may park or stand irrespective of other provisions), 625 ILCS 5/1 — 105 (West 1992) (definition of authorized emergency vehicle — tow trucks are not included). It is not necessary to create new provisions in the law. We can decide the issue before us by applying the clear language of the statute to the facts at hand. Because the defendants were present at the scene of the accident at the direction of a police officer, their behavior came within the express exceptions found in section 11 — 1303(a) and the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegation to the contrary.