Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Kelly v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 308 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-04-16 No. 1630
Disposition: (No. 1630-Claimant awarded $1,100.00.) Award: $1,100.00
Cite as: Kelly v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 308 (1931)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s Kelly v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 308 1931-04-16 (No. 1630-Claimant awarded $1,100.00.) /opinions/v06-p0537-2/

SHELLY KELLY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant was injured while clearing a state road with a tractor and snow plow. The court found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment in extra hazardous work and awarded $1,100.00 under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

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. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON AND CARL I. DIETZ, Assistants Attorney General, for respondent.

On December 24, 1929, claimant was engaged in clearing State Bond Issue Route No. 49 near Kankakee with a tractor and snow plow. His left foot was caught in the machinery and severely injured. As a result of the injury he was required to expend $98.00 for surgical and medical services and to pay a hospital bill of $10.00. He was totally incapacitated for 13 weeks, and partially incapacitated for 135 weeks. His average weekly earnings were $33.00. His injury arose out and in the course of his employment, and he was engaged in work declared extra hazardous by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. As that Act applies to the State when it is engaged in work declared to be extra hazardous claimant is entitled to recover. Under the evidence in this case he is entitled to an award of $1,100.00. It is therefore ordered that claimant be and he is allowed an award of $1,100.00.

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.