Court Opinion

ID: 9521227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:00:51.123316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.495446
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MAAG, dissenting: I do not believe that the legislature in adopting sections 11— 205(e) and 11 — 907(a)(1) and (b) of the Code (625 ILCS 5/11 — 205(e), 11 — 907(a)(1), (b) (West 1992)) intended to alter the laws governing sovereign immunity in our state. I disagree with the majority’s assertion that these are specific statutes which control the more general immunity provisions. I do not believe that these statutes have anything at all to do with immunity. Moreover, the majority claims that no authorities "directly discuss the conflict” between the immunity provisions and the provisions governing emergency vehicles. 293 Ill. App. 3d at 393. I see no conflict. In any event, the statutes have been discussed previously. See Postich v. Henrichs, 267 Ill. App. 3d 236, 641 N.E.2d 975 (1994). The Postich court does not agree with the majority in this case. Neither do I.