With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". wanton conduct, has similarly been interpreted to grant absolute immunity. Foster & Kleiser v. City of Chicago (1986), 146 Ill. App. 3d 928, 497 N.E.2d 459 (section 2 — 206 grants absolute immunity to public employees for damages caused by the issuance, denial or revocation of any permit). See also Baum, Tort Liability of Local Governments and Their Employees: An Introduction to the Illinois Immunity Act, 1966 U. Ill. L.F. 981, 1004 ("malicious acts will not be actionable if they fall within specific immunities granted by sections of the Immunity Act other than section 2 — 201. Many of these sections are categorical in their language and appear to leave no room for exceptions, even where good faith is lacking”); Luber v. City of Highland (1986), 151 Ill. App. 3d 758, 502 N.E.2d 1243 (<HOLDING>). A finding that the grant of immunity under

A: holding that police officers were not entitled to immunity under the itca law enforcement immunity provision where the officers violated their statutory duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all individuals while acting within the scope of their employment
B: holding that sections 4  102 and 4  107 of the tort immunity act covering the enforcement of criminal laws by police officers operated to bar plaintiffs claim for wilful and wanton acts since those sections do not contain language specifically excluding immunity for wilful and wanton conduct
C: holding that the labeling act did not preempt negligent and wanton design and manufacture claims against cigarette manufacturer
D: holding that waiver of sovereign immunity under federal tort claims act for intentional acts committed by federal law enforcement was not limited to investigative activities
B.