Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Walter H. Gifford v. State of Illinois

23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 40 Illinois Court of Claims Filed March 26, 1959 No. 4764
Disposition: (No. 4764-Claimant awarded $247.42.) Award: $247.42 Agency: Illinois National Guard
Cite as: Walter H. Gifford v. State of Illinois, 23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 40 (1959)
Legacy General 23 awarded 1950s Walter H. Gifford v. State of Illinois 23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 40 March 26, 1959 (No. 4764-Claimant awarded $247.42.) /opinions/v23-p0069-1/

WALTER H. GIFFORD, JR., Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $247.42 for damage to his automobile caused by a collision with an Illinois National Guard truck. The court found the respondent negligent and awarded the full amount based on a stipulation of facts.

Claim type: Property Damage

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. ILLINOIS NATIONAL GumD-negligence. Evidence showed that operator of a National Guard truck was negligent in driving vehicle into back of claimant’s automobile, which had come to a stop in the line of traffic at intersection.

This is a claim in the sum of $247.42 for damages to claimant’s automobile arising out of a collision between claimant’s automobile aiicl an Illinois National Guard truck. The accident occurred on February 28, 1956 in Chicago, Illinois.

The case is submitted to this Court upon a stipulation of facts duly entered into by claimant and I-espondent, a sworn statement in the‘nature of a complaint signed by claimant, and a repair bill of the Davis Oldsmobile Company in the amount of $247.42, which has been marked paid.

The stipulation of facts, which was signed by claimant’s attorney and the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, reads as follows:

“It is hereby stipulated by and between Walter H. Gifford, Jr., and the State of Illinois, through their counsels, Charles G. Lind and the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, respectively, as follows:

1. That on February 28, 1956, plaintiffs automobile was damaged by a truck belonging to the Illinois National Guard, 234 E. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and that said truck was being driven by Sgt. Gus C. Anagnost, Battery A, 768th AAA Bn., Illinois National Guard.

2. That the accident took place on Chicago Avenue at Dearborn Street in Chicago, Illinois, and that plaintiff was not of fault.

3. That as a result of said accident plaintiffs car was damaged to the extent of $247.42 as per statement of the Davis Oldsmobile Company of [*41] Chicago, Illinois, dated March 5, 1956, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked exhibit A, and paid by check on March 10, 1956, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked exhibit B. 4. That the State of Illinois admits liability in the above matter, and that plaintiff has suffered damages to the extent of $247.42, plus cost of suit-exhibit C. 5. That plaintiff does not claim any personal injuries as a result of the accident herein mentioned."

From the record in this case, including the stipulation, it appears that respondent's vehicle was being driven by its agent, Sgt. Gus C. Anagnost, a member of the Illinois National Guard, in the regular course of his duty and scope of employment. Claimant had stopped in the line of traffic headed east on Chicago Avenue at its intersection with Dearborn Street in the City of Chicago, and respondent's truck, while being driven by Sgt. Anagnost, ran into the back of claimant's vehicle. Sgt. Anagnost was unable to bring the truck to a stop, and the damages stipulated to in the amount of $247.42 resulted.

This record is sufficient to establish negligence upon the part of respondent, which proximately caused the damages in question, and due care and caution on the part of claimant. Therefore, this claim is hereby allowed in the sum of $247.42.

Official volume 23 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: September 1, 1958–June 30, 1960)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.