Steven J. Van Hoof v. State of Illinois

OPINION

BIRNBAUM, CJ.

Steven J. Van Hoof (“Claimant”) filed a complaint on December 21, 2017 alleging that the State of Illinois, by and through an Illinois Department of Natural Resources Conservation Police Officer, was negligent in operating a state-owned boat on August 12, 2017, resulting in damage to the Claimant’s boat. After re-assignment to a Commissioner located in Chicago, Illinois, Claimant was granted leave to amend his complaint. The amended complaint was filed November 1, 2018 and the State was granted leave to file affirmative defenses. A hearing on the merits was heard by Commissioner Kiley on December 12, 2018. The Commissioner received the transcript from the proceeding on January 20, 2019 and has filed his recommendation.

FACTS

On August 12, 2017, Claimant was piloting his boat, a 2014 Beneteau Swift Trawler approximately 44 feet long, on Lake Michigan. His boat is based out of Sagatuck, Michigan, and he had come into Chicago to take his daughter and some of her friends for a recreational cruise. They were parked for recreation and decided to return back to their point of origin, requiring him to pass by Jardine Water Purification Plant (“Jardine”), just north of Navy Pier.

Claimant testified that boat traffic was light that day, and when he passed by Jardine, he gave it a wide birth. When Claimant saw a Conservation Police boat approach, he stopped his boat by either idling or shutting off the engines. The Conservation Police boat approached from the back of Claimant’s boat, with the front of the police boat directed at the rear of Claimant’s boat. A Conservation Police Officer boarded Claimant’s boat via its swim platform to perform a registration and safety inspection. Claimant passed the registration and safety inspection, and was issued what Claimant referred to as a non-penalty citation.

When the officer returned to his boat, the police boat collided “a little bit” with the swim platform of Claimant’s boat. The collision caused about “a quarter size damage on the edge of the swim platform.” The Conservation Police Officer handed Claimant a card and instructed him to send an estimate for the damages. Claimant had the damage repaired, and the bill for damages in the amount of $986.27 was entered into evidence.

[*184] Claimant also entered into evidence charts of the relevant area of Lake Michigan, as well as excerpts of a book U.S. Coastal Pilot 6, which states that the security zone surrounding Jardine extends one hundred yards surrounding the facility.

Claimant also entered into evidence an Illinois Conservation Police Field Report of the incident. Claimant argued that this report indicates the reason for boarding his boat was to perform a registration and safety inspection. However, the report clearly states Claimant was stopped because the boat was in a restricted boating zone around Jardine.

Claimant testified that he has been pulled over a number of times in his 38 years boating, and the process has always been for the boats to be side-by-side, with the boats tied together and fenders placed between the boats. Claimant entered into evidence an excerpt from the U.S. Coast Guard manual he argues provides that a side-by-side boarding process is the preferred method for boarding a boat.

Claimant’s daughter testified that on the day of the incident, Claimant’s boat was in a recreational area reserved for boats to park in Burnham Harbor, south of Navy Pier. When the sun started to set, they started to return to their point of origin, causing them to pass by Jardine. She did not think they were close at all to land, and when the Conservation Police boat approached, she thought it might be because a light was out on the boat. When they were stopped, she estimated they were about a football field or two away from the water treatment plant. Ms. Van Hoof marked on Exhibit 1 where she believed they were stopped.

Respondent called Officer Joshua Mooi to testify. Mr. Mooi has been a Conservation Police Officer for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for approximately 5 years. On August 12, 2017, he was working a 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. shift assigned to the Chicago lakefront. He was working on a Conservation Police boat with another officer, Officer Seth Thornley. Officer Mooi was driving the boat on this shift, and Officer Thornley was the boarding officer.

On August 12, 2017 at approximately 7:45 p.m., the Officers were patrolling the area around Navy Pier and Jardine. Officer Mooi testified regarding the restricted areas surrounding Jardine, including a 100-foot buoy line surrounding the plant. Private boats, such as Claimant’s, are not allowed in the restricted area.

Officer Mooi testified that when he observed Claimant’s boat, it was transiting through the buoy line around Jardine. His boat was positioned off the east side of Jardine, when he observed the boat enter the restricted area. He maneuvered his vessel behind Claimant’s and activated his emergency lights. When the boat stop occurred, both boats had exited the restricted area. Officer Mooi marked on Respondent’s Exhibit 2 where Claimant entered the restricted area, and according to Officer Mooi, Claimant exited out the northeast corner of the restricted area.

After Officer Thornley completed his safety inspection, a citation was issued to Claimant. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 includes a copy of the citation issued to Claimant, which cites a violation [*185] of 625 ILCS 45/5-7, which is a provision concerning entering a restricted area, such as the one surrounding Jardine.

Officer Mooi testified that when he approached to board Claimant’s boat, he pulled his boat to the back of Claimant’s boat in order to observe safety violations or any emergency situations, as well as to keep a safe distance from the boat. Officer Mooi testified that approaching with the front of a Conservation Police boat to the rear of a private boat is the most often used approach. It allows the officers to observe most of the occupants of the boat, and to get the officers on and off the boat in a quick and safe manner.

Officer Mooi testified that he lost power on his boat’s starboard engine. As he was trouble shooting the problem, passing boat traffic created wakes that caused the conservation boat to get closer to Claimant’s vessel. Officer Mooi testified that he believed the collision was caused by the conservation boat’s mechanical failure, as well as the waves caused by passing boat traffic.

On cross-examination, Officer Mooi testified that all boats that are stopped for transiting a restricted area are boarded for a safety and registration inspection. Officer Mooi further testified that a side-by-side boarding, the method Claimant alleges was more appropriate, had the potential to cause more damage to the boats because of the waves and the differences in size of the two boats.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

For a claim alleging negligence in an accident, “the trier of fact must determine that it was the duty of the Respondent at the time of the occurrence to use ordinary care for the safety of Claimant, and that his failure to do so caused the injury or property damage to the Claimant.” Young v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 416, 418 (1996). It appears undisputed that Respondent had a duty to conduct the stop of the Claimant in a manner that would prevent property damage or injury.

What is in dispute is whether the Respondent breached its duty in conducting the stop of Claimant. The Claimant’s argument that the State’s conduct in approaching his vessel and boarding it from the rear was negligent is not supported. Officer Mooi’s testimony is that a sideby-side approach may have caused more significant damage and that there was nothing inherently dangerous about the process of the stop.

There was sufficient evidence demonstrating the collision of the boats was caused by the State. Due to a mechanical failure on Respondent’s boat, Officer Mooi was forced to trouble shoot that issue while waves from passing boat traffic caused the boats to collide. Officer Mooi could have taken action to avoid the collision had the mechanical failure not occurred. Thus, the collision occurred because the State breached its duty to conduct the stop in a manner that would not result in damage or personal injury to the Claimant.

The State proffered an affirmative defense of contributory negligence. Respondent claims Claimant was contributorily negligent for being in the restricted area, and Claimant’s conduct “interrupted the casual chain and was the proximate cause of at least 51% of the property [*186] damage.” See Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses, ¶2. “Respondent’s liability is limited by the extent to which Claimant’s failure to exercise reasonable care in providing for his own safety contributed to his injuries.” Rivera v. State, 63 Ill. Ct. Cl. 218, 229 (2011). If Claimant is found to be contributorily negligent for his injuries, in a percentage greater than 50%, he will be barred from recovering damages. 735 ILCS 5/2-1116(c).

However, Claimant’s entry into the restricted zone was not a proximate cause of the collision. “Proximate cause is any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of. It need not be the only cause or the last cause or the nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which, in combination with it, causes the injury. (Definition adopted by Court from Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions).” Rivera, 63 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 227 (citation omitted). The collision of Claimant and Respondent’s boats did not occur because it took place within a restricted or dangerous area. In fact, the stop itself took place outside the restricted zone.

While it is true that if the stop had not taken place at all there would have been no collision, it is not a “natural and probable sequence” that a collision between a police boat and private vessel will occur during a stop. It is undisputed that Claimant responded appropriately to the Conservation Police stop by turning off or idling his engines. In this case, Claimant took no action that directly contributed to the two boats colliding, and was not contributorily negligent.

Respondent also proffered the affirmative defense of an Act of God, which would protect the State from liability if the accident was the result of a natural phenomenon. “‘A loss or injury is due to the act of God, when it is occasioned exclusively by natural causes such as could not be prevented by human care, skill and foresight.’…However, liability is only precluded if the alleged act of God constitutes the sole and proximate cause of the injuries.” Evans v. Brown, 399 Ill. App. 3d 238, 246 (4th Dist. 2010) (citing McClean v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 3 Ill. App. 2d 235, 246-47 (1954)) (injuries are caused by acts of God when such injuries are beyond the power of human agency to foresee or prevent); Villegas v. Kercher, 11 Ill. App. 2d 282, 292 (1956) (loss or injury is act of God if it is caused exclusively by natural causes).

The natural occurrence in this case was not natural at all. Officer Mooi testified that the waves that contributed to the collision were the wake of other boaters transiting the area. These waves should have been anticipated and the stop conducted in a manner in which they would not cause the two boats to collide. Further, Officer Mooi testified that the waves were not the sole cause of the collision, and that the mechanical failure on the Respondent’s boat contributed to the collision. Thus, the affirmative defense of an Act of God does not apply.

For the above stated reasons, we find in favor of the Claimant, he is awarded $986.12 in damages.