News + Events

Steve Ekker Successfully Argues in Front of the Third District Appellate Court after Obtaining Summary Judgment in the Trial Court

In a case involving a series of unfortunate events culminating in a police officer shooting and killing a prized Great Dane, Steve Ekker, on behalf of the Defendants, obtained summary judgment in the trial court, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal following appellate oral arguments.

The facts and evidence revealed that on the day in question, a police dispatch reported several callers complaining of a large dog on the loose acting in a vicious manner. An ordinance enforcement officer was the first to arrive at the scene, unarmed, except for a loop and pole, with which he intended to snare the dog and transport it to Animal Control. When he arrived at the scene, saw the size of the dog, and saw that it was running around irrationally, he called for backup assistance.

The officer who ended up shooting the dog responded to the call for back up. When he arrived nearby, he took a rifle from his squad car and went to the scene where he found the enforcement officer and dog fenced inside a backyard. The enforcement officer was attempting to snare the dog with his pole and loop. However, after failing to snare the dog the first time, and upon approaching the dog again, the dog showed its teeth and hackles, and charged the unarmed enforcement officer. When the charging dog had closed the gap to approximately 7-½ feet, the Defendant Officer shot the dog.

The Plaintiffs sued the police officer who pulled the trigger, as well as the municipality in which the police department was located. As part of their damages claim, the Plaintiffs sought approximately $75,000 in future lost profits and income they asserted would have been realized from breeding the dog, who itself had been bred from an impressive blood-line to be a champion.

In the trial court, Mr. Ekker was able to obtain partial summary judgment on the issue of damages, as well as full summary judgment on liability. The Plaintiffs appealed only the summary judgment on liability.

In the appellate court, just as in the trial court, Mr. Ekker successfully argued that because of the extenuating circumstances (i.e., the dog was in the process of charging a fellow-officer and would have done great bodily harm but for the act of the Defendant Officer) the Defendant Officer and the municipality were protected by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.

Mr. Ekker successfully argued that the actions of the Defendant Officer did not rise to the level of wilful and wanton conduct, which would have been necessary in order for the Plaintiffs to escape from the immunity conferred to public employees in the process of executing or enforcing the law. Additionally, Mr. Ekker argued that a different section of the Act conferred a separate blanket immunity for discretionary acts in the field.