JAMES CLARK, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $23.00 for damage to his parked car caused by a State truck driver's negligence. The court denied the claim, holding the State is not liable for employee negligence absent a statute.

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-negligence of State employee-State not liable for. While individuals and private corporations are liable for damages caused by the negligence of their employees and agents, this rule does not apply to the State nor to sub-divisions of it created for governmental purposes, the rule of respondeat superior not being applicable to the State.
SAME-same-remedy for. Where one suffers damages as the result of the negligence of an employee of the State he has his remedy against said employee in courts of general jurisdiction.

JAMES CLARK, pro se. OTTO KERNER, Attorney General; GLENN A. TREVOR, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Claimant, in his complaint filed herein on September 27th, 1935, alleges in substance that on August 12th, 1935 he parked his Packard sedan automobile at 111 North Madison Street in Rockford, Illinois; that while his automobile was [*138] so parked, the driver of State truck No. M-9 carelessly, negligently, willfully and wantonly backed said State truck into and against said Packard sedan, and that the same was thereby damaged to the extent of $23.00, for which amount claimant seeks to be recompensed in this proceeding.

We have repeatedly held that the State in the exercise of its governmental functions, is not liable for the negligence of its employees and agents under the doctrine of respondent superior in the absence of a statute making it so liable. The liability, if any, rests upon the driver of the truck, and not upon the State. This has been held in so many cases that the citation of authorities is unnecessary.

There is no statute making the State liable for the negligence of the driver of the State truck involved in the accident in question, and award must therefore be denied.

Award denied. Case dismissed.