Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MAJKA v. SHEAHAN

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


July 6, 2004.

Majka
v.
Sheahan.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge

In his Fourth Amended Complaint (the Complaint), Plaintiff Stanely Majka alleges that while he was under the custody and control of the Cook County Sheriff's Department, Defendant Michael Sheahan, through his employees and agents, engaged in numerous negligent acts or omissions, which caused Majka to sustain severe and lasting injuries. These negligent acts include failure to adequately train and supervise employees and agents, failure to follow proper procedures, and negligent hiring of employees.

Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim, which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must construe all allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded facts and allegations as true. Bontkowski v. First Nat'l Bank, 998 F.2d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1993).

Defendant argues that the remaining Count of Majka's Complaint (Count II), should be dismissed because it alleged intentional torts for which Defendant Sheahan cannot be held liable. In Illinois, the Tort Immunities Act, 745 ILCS 10/2, expressly shields all public employees from liability related to intentional torts committed by other persons, provided they are acting within the scope of their employment. The same bar, however, does not apply to acts of negligence or omissions. According to 55 ILCS 5/3-6016, the sheriff is liable for his deputy's negligent conduct. After careful review of Majka's Complaint, I find that the claims are based on either negligent acts or omission, not intentional acts. Since Defendant can be held liable for such actions, the Complaint may stand

  For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint is DENIED.

20040706

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.