## Facts

- A silent robbery alarm at Hinsdale Federal Savings & Loan Association was activated, prompting an emergency police response.
- Police officer Alan Duncan drove to the bank in response to the reported robbery and was injured in a traffic collision en route.
- Duncan alleged the alarm was falsely activated by a three-year-old child accompanying customer Patricia Doerr.
- About six days earlier, the same child allegedly triggered the alarm; a bank employee informed Doerr and asked her to keep the child away from the area behind the desk where the alarm button was located.
- During the later incident, a bank employee stepped away from the desk; another employee saw the child behind the desk near the alarm and told him to come out, but the alarm soon activated.
- Duncan alleged multiple false alarms at the bank during the relevant period.
- Duncan sued, alleging the bank negligently failed to prevent unauthorized activation and Doerr negligently failed to supervise and control her child despite prior notice.

## Issues

1. Whether the bank owed a duty of reasonable care to a responding police officer to prevent unauthorized activation of its silent alarm given prior false alarms and accessible alarm placement.
2. Whether Doerr owed a duty, including under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, to control her three-year-old child to prevent foreseeable harm after learning he had previously activated the alarm.
3. Whether the alleged negligence of the bank and Doerr could be deemed not a proximate cause of Duncan’s injuries as a matter of law at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the negligence counts against the bank and Doerr and remanded.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently alleged that the bank owed a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized activation of its robbery alarm under the alleged circumstances.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently alleged that Doerr owed a duty to reasonably supervise and control her child given the alleged prior similar incident and her presence and opportunity to control him.
- The court held proximate cause was not resolvable on the pleadings because reasonable factfinders could differ on whether a false robbery alarm foreseeably led to an emergency response and resulting collision risk.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence turns on foreseeability, policy considerations, and the burden of precautions in light of the risk created by the defendant’s conduct.
- An entity operating a robbery-alarm system may owe a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized activation when prior false alarms or known access to the alarm makes such activation foreseeable.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, a parent may have a duty to exercise reasonable care to control a minor child when the parent knows or should know of the need and has the ability and opportunity to control the child.
- Proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact and should be decided as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss only when no reasonable person could find causation.
- Intervening negligent driving during an emergency response does not necessarily sever causation when traffic accidents are a foreseeable risk of emergency responses.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the complaint plausibly alleged duties by both the bank and the child’s parent to prevent foreseeable harms from false robbery-alarm activations, and it allowed the case to proceed because proximate cause could not be rejected as a matter of law at the pleading stage.


Duncan v. Rzonca, 478 N.E.2d 603 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)