1977, ch. 95V2, par. 11 — 1501(b)). Moon, 127 Ill. App. 3d at 658. The parents argued that a parent’s authority, discretion and control in rearing a child should prevail over the Contribution Act. The appellate court disagreed and held that the discretion and control of the parents were already circumscribed by the legislature’s imposition of a specific statutory duty to oversee their child’s actions with respect to the operation of a bicycle. The appellate court also noted that the parent-child immunity doctrine is a doctrine that has been steadily eroded by Illinois courts. Moon, 127 Ill. App. 3d at 661. In other cases, however, the immunity has prevailed over the law of contribution. See Buell v. Oakland Fire Protection District Board, 237 Ill. App. 3d 940, 605 N.E.2d 618 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Stephens v. Cozadd, 159 Ill. App. 3d 452, 512
holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs holding that no public policy stated where employee and not public at large would benefit from employees whistleblowing actions holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine holding that the public policy considerations supporting public officials immunity required that the immunity be applied to bar contribution actions as well as direct actions holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit