STANLEY STACHOWIAK, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for injuries from being struck by a state prison truck. The court found the driver negligent but stated no legal liability, awarding $260.00 in equity and good conscience.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR-State not liable for torts of inmates of its institu- OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR-State not liable for torts of inmates of its institutions. While the State is not liable for the torts of an inmate of its institution, an award may be made to claimant for an injury sustained and damage caused by the negligence of an inmate of its institution. GONEY & GONEY, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE LEAch delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages caused by reason of an accident which occurred on the morning of May 2, 1924, between six and seven o'clock at the intersection of Hickory and Ruby streets in the city of Joliet, Illinois, whereby claimant was struck by a truck operated by an inmate of the state penitentiary. [*216]

The truck continued traveling after striking the claimant, for a distance of about fifteen feet or more, when it crashed into a curbing north of Ruby street, and there is some testimony to the effect that the driver of the truck did not sound his horn until he was about to strike claimant. This testimony is contradicted by witnesses for the State. We are of the opinion that the driver of the State truck was guilty of negligence in not stopping his car when he saw the claimant crossing the street "head down." It is the duty of the driver of an automobile or truck to keep a careful and prudent lookout for pedestrians, in order to avoid colliding with them.

From the evidence submitted here on behalf of claimant, this was not done.

As the amount of damages, it appears from the evidence that claimant was disabled for a period of six months, and that he was earning about $3.60 a day, and that he incurred a doctor's bill amounting to $50.00.

While we do not believe that there is any legal liability on the part of the State for damages sustained by the claimant, yet as a matter of equity and good conscience we award to claimant $260.00.