Larson v. State of Illinois — 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 493

KARL AXEL HENRICK LARSON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for crop loss allegedly caused by improper drainage from construction of hard road Route 3. The court found that crop failures occurred only in wet years and that the State was not responsible for damages from extraordinary rainfall, and denied the claim.

Claim type: Property Damage

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

Headnotes

PROPERTY DAMAGE-when no award will be made for damage on account SAME-when value to adjacent property owners will be considered by rea- REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. Where no good reason ap- OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

Rehearing denied March 11, 1931. PROPERTY DAMAGE-when no award will be made for damage on account of construction of a hard road. Where the record shows that damages to property resulted from excessive rainfall, and not by the construction of a hard road no award will be made. SAME-when value to adjacent property owners will be considered by reason of the construction of a hard road. Where there is a claim for damages against the State on account of the construction of a hard road, the value of such hard road to adjacent property owners will be considered in such claim for damages. REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. Where no good reason appears from the petition for rehearing to change the opinion heretofore entered a rehearing will be denied. B. F. FIELD, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARITY delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages alleged to be done to crops on account of the improper construction of hard road Route 3, which is supposed to have caused poor drainage of the claimant's land. The land in question has been termed "low land on general level" and from the evidence disclosed by the record it appears that in dry years, crops could always be raised and in wet years they could not raise crops and it does appear that the years in question were exceedingly wet years.

The State contends that it would be an impossibility to build a bridge that would take care of the situation following extraordinary heavy rains. The Attorney General also contends that the damages to the crops of this claimant were caused only on low land after extra heavy rainfalls; that the State is not responsible for damages therefrom and from all the evidence this court is of the opinion that the contention of the Attorney General is correct and it is further the opinion of the court that the building of these hard roads throughout the State has been of considerable value to adjacent property owners which ought to be considered wherein there is a claim for damages as in this case.

Therefore it is recommended that this claim be denied and the claim dismissed.

On March 11, 1931, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed: This claim coming on for rehearing and the court after consideration of the petition for rehearing finds no good reason to change the opinion heretofore entered. Therefore the petition for rehearing is denied.