FLOSSIE ET AL., Claimants, ws. STATE OF ILrnvors, BARBEE, Respondent. Opiniom jiled J m u a r y 10, 1950.
Case summary
Claimant's automobile was damaged when it drove into an unmarked excavation on a state highway. The court found the State negligent and awarded $50 to the claimant and $609.83 to her insurance company by subrogation.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- HIGHWAYS, UNPBOTECTED EXCAVATION. IN-where Claim for dUWUlge8 to automobile ocoasioned by will be allowed. Where the State Highway was undergoing repairs and a large excavation therein was obscured by a hill to drivers approaching from the other side and there were no flares maintained until after dark, and the claimant’s car was damaged due to driving into the excavation, an award for such damages will be made.
On October 20, 1948, claimant, Flossie Barbee, was the owner of a 1940 Dodge sedan automobile. On said date at approximately 5:45 P.M., said automobile was being driven by Wallace D. Barbee, son and agent of claimant, Flossie Barbee, in an easterly direction on the south side of a. concrete highway known as U. S. Route No. 50, about one and one-half miles east of Odin, Illinois.
Said highway was undergoing repairs and a large exca[*87]vation had been dug by the State of Illinois on the south lane at a point where the view of the highway was obscured to anyone approaching from the west by a slight rise in the pavement. The evidence shows that the agents of respondent did not put out flares until after dark and - as a result the automobile in question was driven into the excavation where a fourteen foot portion of the pavement had been removed.
As a result of the negligence of respondent, claimant’s automobile was damaged to the extent of $659.83.
There was paid the claimant by the Protective Mutual Gasualty Insurance Company the sum of $609.83 because of a collision policy which it carried on claimant’s car and to which amount the company is entitled to reimbursement by reason of its right of subrogation under the policy. The claimant, Flossie Barbee, has not received reimbursement of the $50.00 damage sustained by her.
The record in this case consists of the complaint, departmental report, transcript of evidence, abstract of evidence, claimant’s statement, brief and argument, additional abstract of evidence, respondent’s statement, brief and argument and claimant’s reply brief.
The evidence further shows that the claimant, Flossie Barbee, was the sole owner of the automobile which was damaged.
An award is, therefore, entered in favor of claimant, Flossie Barbee, for the sum of $50.00, and an award is also entered in favor of the Protective Mutual Casualty Inswrance Company for the sum of $609.83.