DEFAMATION. when they are (1) made to law enforcement officials; (2) for. Courts presume that reports. purposes of instituting legal proceedings.

Transcription

1

2 DEFAMATION College Student's Report to Campus Security That Plaintiff Had Sexually Assaulted and Was Stalking Her Was Absolutely Privileged. Razavi v. Walkuski, 2016 IL App (1st) The case arose after Defendant reported to her college campus security director that Plaintiff has sexually assaulted her on several occasions and was also stalking her. The campus security director Courts presume that reports of crime to law enforcement are made for the purpose of instituting legal proceedings. then escorted the Defendant to the Chicago Police Department where she filed an incident report. The college held a disciplinary hearing, and expelled the Plaintiff from the college. Plaintiff then filed a defamation action against defendant and the college. The Defendant moved to dismiss contending that her conversations with campus security was absolutely privileged because the reports were made to law enforcement personnel. An Interlocutory appeal then arose as to whether Under Illinois law, does the absolute privilege for reporting crimes to law enforcement apply to a college student s report of on-campus sexual violence to campus security, particularly when federal law encourages college students to report sexual violence to campus security? The Appellate Court found that the absolute privilege did apply. The Appellate Court noted that statements are absolutely privileged when they are (1) made to law enforcement officials; (2) for purposes of instituting legal proceedings. First, the court considered whether campus security constitutes law enforcement officials. The purpose of a campus security department is to protect and provide assistance to its students, as well as uphold the law on its campus. Thus, the Court held that the underlying rationale for the privilege as well as the public policy of helping prevent sexual assault on college campuses warrants treating campus security as law enforcement. Second, the court addressed whether those statements were made for purposes of instituting legal proceedings. The Court acknowledged that the act of reporting to a police officer does not itself constitute a legal proceeding. In the context of reports to traditional law enforcement, courts presume that statements are made for the purpose of instituting legal proceedings. Thus, the Court had no reason to depart from this rational and found the defendant s alleged defamatory report was absolutely privileged. Top of the Document EMPLOYER S LIABILITY Kotecki Limitation on Employer's Contribution Liability to General Contractor for Worker s Injury Is Not an Affirmative Defense and May Be Invoked Post-Trial. Burhmester v. Steve Spiess Construction, Inc., 2016 IL App (3d) The plaintiff filed suit against the general contractor of a job site after he was severely injured on the job by an electrical shock. The general contractor filed a third-party complaint against the plaintiff s employer for contribution. The employer answered the third-party complaint and asserted an affirmative defense that any contribution for which it was found liable was limited to the amount paid or payable in workers compensation benefits, pursuant to the Kotecki doctrine. The general contractor moved for a directed verdict against the employer, arguing that it had failed to prove its Kotecki claim as an affirmative defense. The trial court denied the motion, and further granted the employer s post-trial motion to waive its workers compensation lien and dismiss the third-party complaint, over the general contractor s objections to the waiver and the evidentiary affidavit presented in support. 2015, Reed Armstrong Mudge & Morrissey, P.C. Page 2

3

4

5

6