Charles H. Hoff, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged that the State negligently maintained a highway shoulder, causing his car to overturn. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the State is not liable for the negligence of its servants or agents absent a statute, and that no exception exists for willful or wanton negligence.
Cases cited: George Franklin Garbutt, Admr. vs. State, No. 2246
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Property damage-sustained as result of negligence of employees of State-State not liable for-doctrine of respondent superior not applicable to State-equity and good conscience, when award on grounds of cannot be made. The facts in this case are similar to those in Garbutt, Admr. vs. State, No. 2246, supra and the opinion in that case is controlling herein.
Claimant alleges in his complaint that on June 17th, 1934 he was driving his automobile on S. B. I. Route No. 6 about five miles east of the City of Morris, Illinois, and was in the exercise of all due care and caution for his own safety; that at the time and place aforesaid, the shoulder on said highway was maintained by the respondent in a defective and danger[*64]ous condition; that as the result of the carelessness and negligence of the respondent in the maintenance of the shoulder on said highway as aforesaid, the automobile in which the claimant was riding, was caused to turn over and was thereby demolished; by reason whereof he claims damages.
The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case for the reason that there is no liability on the part of the State for the acts of its servants and agents under the doctrine of respondent superior in the absence of a statute making it so liable.
Claimant admits that the general rule is as stated by the Attorney General, but contends that the negligence of the respondent was wilful and wanton, and that an exception to the general rule exists in such cases.
This identical question was raised and fully considered by the court on rehearing in the case of George Franklin Garbutt, Admr. vs. State, No. 2246 (opinion on rehearing filed at the present term of this court) and we there held adversely to the contention of the claimant. In that case we said: "If the State is not liable for the ordinary negligence of its servants and agents, there is no principle of law under which it can be held liable for the gross or wanton negligence of such servants and agents, in the absence of a statute making it so liable. The purported exception has no basis in law, and is no longer recognized by this court."
Our jurisdiction is limited to claims in respect of which the claimant would be entitled to redress against the State either at law or in equity if the State were suable.
We have no authority to allow an award under the allegations of the complaint and the motion of the Attorney General must therefore be sustained.
Motion to dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.