The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the district court’s decision regarding tort immunity following a crash with a downed light pole. Eddington v. City of Springfield, 2025 IL App. (4th) 241630. In April 2021, Officer Byrne of the Springfield Police Department, responded to an accident involving a downed light pole. Officer Byrne departed the scene before the City, Water, Light, & Power (CWLP) technician arrived to fix the obstruction. In the interim, a second car hit the downed pole, injuring a passenger. The district court determined that Officer Byrne’s failure to take any remedial action warranted liability. However, the appellate court reversed and found that, as alleged, Officer Byrne enjoyed tort immunity.

Specifically, the appellate court determined that Officer Byrne enjoyed immunity under Section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act, which immunizes local public entities and their employees “for an injury caused by the failure to initially provide regulatory traffic control devices, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, distinctive roadway markings, or any other traffic regulating or warning sign, device, or marking, signs, overhead lights, traffic separating or restraining devices or barriers.” 745 ILCS 10/3-104. The Court detailed the importance of the word “initially”, noting that as applied by the courts, the immunity would attach in the absence of any action on behalf of the public entity. In light of the lack of any evidence that Officer Byrne took any remedial action, the Plaintiff could not show that he fell outside the scope of the immunity. He never initiated any action to provide traffic regulation.

This decision emphasizes the importance of training officers, and other public entities, to work within the bounds of their roles and experience. The Court noted that the light pole was not an obstruction that Officer Byrne would have been able to handle on his own. The pole was heavy, and there were exposed live wires. As such, it was reasonable that an experienced CWLP technician would be needed. However, had Officer Byrne attempted to move the pole, and subsequently failed, he would have fallen outside the scope of the immunity for the ensuing damage. While there may have been other steps available to Officer Byrne, such as lighting a flare or leaving his vehicle on the scene until the technician arrived, none of these options were required. On the face of the immunity Officer Byrne is immune for failing to initially provide any traffic regulation devices, and therefore judgment for the defendants was appropriate.

For more information about this article please contact Tressler Attorney Alexander T. Myers at amyers@tresslerllp.com.

Alexander (Alex) T. Myers serves as an associate in Tressler’s Local Government and Litigation Practice Groups. His practice is primarily focused on civil rights litigation, tort litigation, employment litigation and counseling, matters arising from section 1983, and police misconduct. Alex’s legal background as a Deputy Attorney General for the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (OAG) encompassed numerous litigation topics across both state and federal courts. Click here to read Alexander’s full attorney bio.