In Estate of Matthew Heiden v. Village of Westmont, the Illinois appellate court allowed a lawsuit brought by the Estate of an employee who had died while performing his job to proceed. The court held that the Estate’s complaint plausibly alleged that the village intentionally sent a young employee into a deadly confined space, which, if true, would take the case outside the Workers’ Compensation Act’s “exclusive remedy” rule and outside Tort Immunity Act protections.
A 20-year-old water department employee drowned after being sent alone into an underground vault with no training, no safety equipment, and no confined space protections, despite the village having been repeatedly cited for the same violations. The Estate alleged that the village knew the dangers and still sent him in intending for him to be injured.
When a public employee is hurt or killed on the job, the case typically stays in the workers’ compensation system and public employers are typically immune from general “tort” liability for personal injuries. Here, however, the court recognized an important exception: when an employer’s conduct is alleged to be intentional, not accidental. Because the Estate alleged that the village’s actions were intentional, the Workers’ Compensation Act did not exclude the Estate from pursuing a tort remedy. Equally as significant, the court found that the village was not immune from liability pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, because the Estate alleged a failure to comply with OSHA.
This case is a cautionary tale that even public bodies can face substantial monetary liability for employee injuries that occur on the job. While both the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Tort Immunity Act generally provide protection against limitless liability, both laws have limits when it comes to allegedly intentional conduct.
Contact Pam Simaga to discuss the practical impact of the decision.
Source: Heiden v. Village of Westmont, 2026 IL App (3d) 250071