DOROTHY JENSEN, Claimant, 2’s. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for personal injuries and property damage from a roadway cave-in, alleging negligence by the State. The court denied the claim, holding the State is not liable for negligence of its employees and that the complaint also failed to allege notice of the defect.
Cases cited: Krarner vs. State, 8 C. C. R., 31; Johnston. vs. State, 9 C. C. R., 381; Finizey vs. State, 9 C. C. R., 327; Moffett vs. State, 10 C. C. R., 54; Dugar vs. State, No. 3549, opinion rendered February 14, 1941; Stanley vs. State, 10 C. C. R., 146; Garbutt vs. State, 10 C. C. R., 37; Crabtree vs. State, 7 C . C. R., 207; Helen Turner et a1 vs. State, No. 3633
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NmuctmcE-employees of Divzsaon of Highways- State not ltable forr k e - o f respondeat supertor not applzcable t o State- award cannot be wLade f o r damages resulttng froin, o n grounds of equaty and, good consczence. I n the construction and maintenance of its public highways, t h e State exercises a governmental function and is not liable for damages t o property, caused by either a defect i n the construction or failure to maintain same i n a safe condition, or for the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of its officerk, agents or empIoyees in connection therewith, and no award can be made therefor, under any theory of law or equity.
Claimant seeks an award in the sum of Two Hundred
($200.00) Dollars for damages to her automobile and One
Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars for personal injuries received
by her on the 6th day of May, 1942, alleged to be the result of negligence on the part of the State of Illinois through its employees, agents or officers.
Claimant alleges that on said date while driving her automobile with due diligence and care for her own safety in Chicago, along and upon the State Highway at 95th Street near the intersection of Melviria Avenue the roadway caved in, causing her car to overturn. The claimant sustained a broken arm and damage to her automobile as aforesaid.
This claim is predicated on the assumption that the State, in the exercise of a governmental function, is liable for injuries to persons resulting from the negligence of its officers, agents or employees.
As this complaint is drawn it would he insufficient, if the State were suable, for the reason that it fails to allege that the State or its employees had actual notice of the alleged defect in the pavement or that it had existed for such a length of time that the State was presumed to have notice of such defect.
It has been repeatedly held, by this clmrt, that the State is not liable for injuries to persons or property resulting from [*351] the negligence of its employees. Krarner vs. State, 8 C. C. R., 31; Johnston. vs. State, 9 C. C. R., 381; Finizey vs. State, 9 C. C. R., 327; Moffett vs. State, 10 C. C. R., 54; Dugar vs. State, No. 3549, opinion rendered February 14, 1941.
And the fact that the negligence is gross or wanton does flat change the rule. Stanley vs. State, 10 C. C. R., 146; Garbutt vs. State, 10 C. C. R., 37 ; Dugar vs. State, supra.
The Court of Claims has jurisdiction to recommend an award only where the State would be liable in law or in equity, in a court of general jurisdiction if it were suable. Crabtree vs. State, 7 C . C. R., 207; Helen Turner et a1 vs. State, No. 3633.
The Attorney General having filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, this court after full consideration of the complaint and the authorities must sustain the motion.
Motion sustained. Complaint dismissed.