The Illinois Appellate Court issued a recent decision in favor of law enforcement. In Hinton-Goodwin v. City of Harvey, 2026 IL App (1^st) 241320, the court held that the “willful and wanton” standard is a high bar for proving liability in police pursuit cases. Under Section 2-202 of the Tort Immunity Act, police officers engaged in the execution and enforcement of the law are entitled to immunity for any injuries that may occur as a result of those police activities unless their conduct is deemed willful and wanton.

Facts of the Police Pursuit

On the night in question, the police were on routine patrol when they spotted a vehicle at a gas station, which police believed matched a vehicle involved in an aggravated battery or shooting. When police approached the vehicle, the driver sped off, and a police pursuit ensued. Most of the officers activated their lights and sirens. Traffic was light, the weather was clear, and pedestrians were not present.

As the pursuit continued, the driver of the vehicle disregarded a red light, drove through a store parking lot, and veered into oncoming traffic. Officers drove ahead to warn motorists and contacted the South Holland Police to block traffic as the pursuit headed in that direction. In total, the pursuit lasted about seven minutes and covered 4.5 miles. At an intersection, the driver of the vehicle being pursued ran a red light and collided with Hinton-Goodwin’s car. The speed of the offending vehicle did not exceed 40 miles per hour. The key events were captured on video. Plaintiff Hinton-Goodwin filed a lawsuit against the police seeking a money judgment for the City for her injuries.

No Willful and Wanton Conduct by Police

The First District Appellate Court found in favor of the police and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The Court rejected the argument that the police could have chosen a different course of action, such as boxing in the driver’s car, noting that “neither hindsight alternatives nor the resulting accident” rendered the conduct of the police “in the moment” willful and wanton. Specifically, the Court stated, “we evaluate willful and wanton conduct in light of the circumstances in which [the police] found themselves and not under the unassailable illumination of hindsight.” The court held that the willful and wanton inquiry is objective, focusing on the officers’ conduct at the time rather than on possibilities conceived after the fact.

On the record before the court, it held that no reasonable jury could find the officers’ conduct willful and wanton. Factors considered included the weather and road conditions (traffic was minimal and the roads were dry), the fact that the officers drove ahead to warn oncoming traffic, and asked a neighboring police department to block traffic, and took steps to avoid the accident.

This case decision is an important one for law enforcement, who are often called upon to make split-second decisions in rapidly evolving case scenarios.

For more information about this article, contact Tressler attorney Darcy L. Proctor at dproctor@tresslerllp.com.

Darcy L. Proctor is a partner in Tressler’s Local Government Practice Group. Darcy concentrates her practice in the defense of local governments in all aspects of tort, civil rights liability, and employment litigation. She also defends private sector employers across a variety of employment law issues. Click here to read Darcy’s full attorney bio.