CHESTER E. COULTAS,ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LECILLE MILDRED COULTAS,DECEASED, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for the wrongful death of his intestate, who died when the car she was in struck a tree limb blown onto a state highway. The court denied the claim, holding that the State is not liable in tort for negligence in the construction and maintenance of roads, as it acts in a governmental capacity.
Cases cited: Morrissey vs. State, 2 C. C. R. 454; MipLear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NmuGENcE-respolwleat superior4octran.e of not applzcable to State. In the exercise of its governmental functions, the State is not liable for the negligence of its officers, agents or employees, in the absence of a Statute making it so liable, and in the State of Illinois there is no such Statute.
- HIGHWAYS-COWtrUGtiOn and mdintenance of, governmental ficwtaon. In the construction and maintenance of public highways, the State exercises a governmental function, and is not liable for damages, caused by a defect in construction or failure to maintain same in a safe condition for travel.
Claimant alleges that his intestate, on the 11th day of August, 1934, was in an automobile driven by another, over U. S. Route No. 36, which road had been built and maintained by the State of Illinois ; that about 11:30 p. m., approximately three hundred yards west of the point known as the “Wilson Corner,” the car in which the deceased was riding struck a large limb of a tree which had been blown across the highway by a storm which occurred a couple of hours before claimant’s intestate approached in the automobile, and was not seen by the driver of the automobile until the automobile was practically at the place where the limb of the tree had fallen upon the highway.
The usual averments of due care and caution for her own safety are contained in the complaint.
Plaintiff’s intestate, Lucille Mildred Coultas, died as the result of her injuries.
The complaint charges that the State had employed a *watchman or a maintenance man located at Winchester, Illinois, whose duty it was to inspect and patrol the highways and to see that they remain in a safe condition.
Damages in the sum of $10,000.00 are claimed.
The Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss this claim on the ground that the State is not liable for the carelessness and negligence of its servants and agents.
Both this court and the Supreme Court of Illinois and other courts have held that in the construction and maintenance of its roads, the State acts in a governmental capacity and in the exercise of such governmentitl functions it does not become liable in actions of tort by reason of the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of its officers or agents in the absence of a statute creating such liability.
[*15] EVANS ET AL. v . STATE O F ILLINOIS. 449 Morrissey vs. State, 2 C. C . R. 454; MipLear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549.
Many times, since the adoption of the opinion in the Morrissey case, this court has followed the doctrines therein announced. Therefore, the motion to dismiss will be sustained and cause dismissed.