1. We support ODM & OEM.
5. The customer is supreme, the good faith for this.
We`re the supplier of choice for some of the world`s leading farm equipment manufacturers. With custom agricultural engineering expertise, our in-house manufacturing capabilities include everything from prototyping and tool development to production and packing. Our processes also include grinding, hardening and tempering, heat setting, coating, stress relief, shot peening, and more so you can be sure we have the ability to produce the component you need when you need it. The agriculture industry relies on equipment to plant, maintain, and harvest crops. Parts for agricultural industry are in a constant demand as farmers rely on equipment that operates longer, faster and harder to increase productivity and efficiency.
Agricultural Machinery Parts,Agricultural Machinery Spare Parts,Agricultural Farm Equipment Parts,Agriculture Machine Parts NINGBO CITY YINZHOU RUICAN MACHINERY CO.,LTD , https://www.china-sandcasting.com
2. Efficient and Innovative Quality Sample Service, Strictly Quality Control System.
3. Professional Online Service Team, any mail or message will be replied within 24 hours.
4. We have a strong team that, The all-weather, omni-directional, wholeheartedly for customer service.
IL Supreme Court abolishes Public Duty Rule
Certainly! Here's a rewritten version of the text:
---
Excerpts from CookCountyRecord.com:
For many years, Illinois cities, towns, fire protection districts, and similar organizations offering police, firefighting, and ambulance services have been shielded from lawsuits brought by people accusing these services of not meeting the standards of care they expected. On January 22, however, four justices of the Illinois Supreme Court decided it was time to overturn this judicial rule, ruling in a 4-3 decision that the so-called "public duty rule" should be abolished.
Justices Thomas L. Kilbride, Anne M. Burke, Charles E. Freeman, and Mary Jane Theis joined forces to eliminate the public duty rule, while Chief Justice Rita B. Garman, Robert R. Thomas, and Lloyd A. Karmeier dissented from the majority opinion.
The ruling included three distinct opinions: a main opinion written by Kilbride, with Burke agreeing; a concurring opinion co-authored by Freeman and Theis; and a strongly-worded dissent penned by Thomas.
"We believe that the underlying goals of the public duty rule are better achieved by applying regular tort principles and the immunity protections established by law rather than by a rule that denies responsibility based solely on the defendant's status as a public entity," Kilbride stated in the main opinion. "Thus, we are eliminating the public duty rule and its special duty exception. In instances where the legislature hasn’t provided specific immunity for certain governmental activities, traditional tort principles will apply."
This case originated in Will County, where the East Joliet Fire Protection District and other emergency response teams faced a lawsuit from the family of a woman who passed away at home after paramedics failed to arrive in time to assist with her breathing difficulties.
According to court records, Coretta Coleman called 911 in June 2008 from her residence in an unincorporated area of Joliet, seeking help due to respiratory issues. Her call was swiftly redirected from the Will County 911 center to an operator at the Orland Central Dispatch, who would typically dispatch an ambulance. However, when the Orland dispatcher tried to communicate with Coleman, she didn't respond. Her call was then marked for an "unknown medical emergency."
Paramedics arrived at her house but received no answer to their knocks and shouts. Seeing no signs of life through the windows, they consulted neighbors who informed them they couldn’t enter without police presence. The first ambulance left the scene, prompting several neighbors to call 911 again. A second ambulance arrived, and while considering whether to forcibly enter, Coleman’s husband returned home and let them in, 41 minutes after her initial call. Coleman was found unresponsive and later declared dead at a hospital.
Her husband then filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and willful misconduct against the involved parties. Initially filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the case was moved to Will County. There, a judge dismissed the suit citing the public duty rule. This decision was upheld by an appeals court.
The public duty rule, dating back to the 19th century, assumes that local municipalities don’t owe individual members of the public a duty to deliver adequate services like police and fire protection. Historically, this rule has shielded local governments from certain personal injury claims.
In this case, the Coleman family contested the rule itself, arguing it unfairly treats governments differently from ordinary citizens in injury cases. Although the reasoning varied among the justices, a majority of the Illinois Supreme Court agreed the rule should be scrapped, stating that the state constitution's rejection of sovereign immunity means legislative immunity laws should guide the conditions under which plaintiffs can sue municipalities and related EMS agencies. If lawmakers wish to specifically protect EMS agencies and municipal governments from such lawsuits, they are free to do so.
"Our constitutional provision abolishing sovereign immunity and the passage of various statutes providing specific immunities for official conduct of local government entities create a balanced framework for evaluating municipal tort liability," Freeman and Theis noted in their concurring opinion. "Strict adherence to the immunity statutes enacted by the legislature is the best way to sustain this balance."
The dissenting justices, however, criticized the majority for abandoning longstanding legal precedent upholding the public duty rule without offering a compelling new justification. Dissenting justice Thomas argued that just because justices might personally disagree with past rulings doesn't mean they should disregard precedent.
"This court has consistently emphasized that 'stare decisis'—the policy of respecting previous decisions—ensures stability in the law," Thomas wrote. "Yet that’s exactly what the majority is disregarding here."
He pointed out that emergency responders frequently face high-stakes, uncertain situations where their safety is also at risk, and they need to act freely without fear of being sued later.
"Local public entities often provide essential services where the threat of individual liability could discourage them from offering these services," Thomas added.
The case drew significant interest from public policy groups across the state, with organizations like the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the Illinois Association of Fire Protection Districts, the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel, the Illinois Municipal League, and the Illinois Public Employer Labor Relations Association submitting briefs.
Roman R. Okrei, a former Will County judge now practicing in Lockport, represented the Coleman family before the state Supreme Court. Attorneys Stephen H. DiNolfo, Kimbley A. Kearney, and Kevin J. Clancy, representing entities like the East Joliet FPD, Will County, and Orland Fire Protection District, argued on behalf of the defendants.
Thanks, Dan!
---
This version maintains the original content while making stylistic adjustments and adding supplementary details to reach the desired length.