Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Brooks v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 392 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1930-03-12 No. 1662
Disposition: (No. 1662-Claimant awarded $33.00.) Award: $33.00 Agency: Office of the Secretary of State
Cite as: Brooks v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 392 (1930)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s Brooks v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 392 1930-03-12 (No. 1662-Claimant awarded $33.00.) /opinions/v06-p0413-1/

JAMES M. BROOKS, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, an investigator for the Secretary of State, was injured while pursuing a stolen car and sought reimbursement for his doctor bills. The court recommended allowing the requested $33.00.

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

  1. PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made for medical bills. Where

It appears that claimant while in the act of performing his duties as an investigator from the office of William J. Stratton, Secretary of State, in the enforcement of motor vehicle law, while pursuing a stolen car in the City of Chicago and in trying to avoid striking a child he turned his motorcycle in [*393] the sidewalk and was thrown from it and as a result of such fall, he sustained injuries. It appears that claimant is asking for no compensation other than his doctor bills in the sum of Thirty-three ($33.00) Dollars.

It would appear that this is a modest request in view of claims that have been filed herein and that the injuries complained of were suffered in the performance of his duties and that his physician's bill should be allowed as requested.

It is therefore recommended by this court that claimant be allowed the sum of Thirty-three ($33.00) Dollars.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.