G. A. WOLFORD, Claimant, IJS. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $125 for injury to his mule while cutting weeds under agreement with the State. The court denied the award, finding no negligence by State agents and no liability under respondeat superior, citing prior similar cases.
Cases cited: Baie vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 103; Caslyn vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 107; Hupp vs. State, 10 C. C. R. 360; Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207; Titome vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 389
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NauGENcw-oficers, agents and employees of State- State not liable for.
ROSCOE
C. BONJEAN,for claimant.
J OHN E. CASSIDY, Attorney General; MURRAY F. MILNE, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
NauGENcw-oficers, agents and employees of State- State not liable for.
Propevty damage - mules owned and nsed by claimant in performance of work for State-possibilitv of loss or damage to, risk incident to employment-nO award can be made for loss or dawmge to. The facts in this case are similar to those in Baie vs. State, 9 Court of Claims Reports, 103; Caslyn vs. State, 9 Court of Claims Reports, 107 and H u p p vs. State, 10 Court of Claims Reports, 360, in which awards were denied and what was said by the Court therein applies with equal force in the present case.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HOLLERICH delivered the opinion of ' the court: It appears from the record in this case that on or about August lst, 1938, one J. L. Todd, Superintendent of Maintenance of the Division of Highways of the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the respondent, entered into an agreement with the claimant whereby the latter agreed to furnish a team of mules, a driver, and a mower, and cut the weeds along the right-of-way of S. B. I. Route No. 10, near the city limits of Springfield, in Sangamon County; that on August 18th, 1938, while a certain! servant and agent of the claimant was cutting weeds on a steep bank on said right-ofway, pursuant to the aforementioned agreement, the mower [*100] ran into and struck the lower part of the right leg of one of the mules, whereby such mule was seriously and permanently injured, and claimant asks damages in the amount of $125.00 on account thereof.
The claimant has waived his right to file a Brief and Argument, and it is impossible for the court to determine upon what grounds he relies for recovery. The mules-were being driven by a servant and agent of the claimant, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the injury sustained by the mule in question was the result of any negligOence on the part of any servant or agent of the respondent. Furthermore, this court has repeatedly held that there is no liability on the part of the State on the grounds of respondeat superior.
A similar state of facts was presented in each of the following cases, and in each case an award was denied, to-wit: Baie vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 103; Cmlym vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 107; H u p p vs. State, No. 3227, decided September 14th, 1938.
Under the facts in this case, there would be no liability on the part of the State if the State mere suable, and therefore we have no authority to allow an award. Crabtree vs.
State, 7 C. C. R. 207; Titome vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 389.
Award denied. Case dismissed.