decisions. However, the Court in this case concluded that deference was not warranted. The Court rejected the Board’s argument that the incident which resulted in the officer’s disability
was inherently associated with his training, experience and
responsibilities as a police officer and thus could not be characterized as “undesigned and unexpected.” To the contrary, the
Court emphasized that an officer’s training and responsibilities
as a police officer were not relevant factors in determining
whether the event that caused the injury was “undesigned and
unexpected.” In looking at the incident in this case, the Court
noted that the undisputed facts established that an inherently
dangerous high-speed pursuit through the streets of Belleville
turned unexpectedly into a significantly more violent incident,
which caused the officer’s permanent psychological disabling
injury. In determining whether an occurrence was “undesigned
and unexpected,” the Court emphasized that the focus must be
on the spontaneous unforeseen actions of the suspect who
acted to intentionally run down the officer’s partner with the
stolen car. The officer’s partner was struck with sufficient force
to thrust him into the air. In addition, the suspect was killed by
a single gunshot to the head fired by the officer’s partner immediately before he was struck by the car. These factors were particularly relevant in the Court’s conclusion that the incident
was “undes YۙY[