Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Linda Weislo v. State of Illinois

37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 79 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1984-11-07 No. 80-CC-0297
Disposition: (No. 80-CC-0297-Claimant awarded $16,000.0$) Award: $16,000.00 Agency: Illinois Department of Transportation
Cite as: Linda Weislo v. State of Illinois, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 79 (1984)
General Court of Claims 37 awarded 1980s Linda Weislo v. State of Illinois 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 79 1984-11-07 (No. 80-CC-0297-Claimant awarded $16,000.0$) /opinions/v37-p0161-1/

LINDA WEISLO,Claimant, u. THE STA TE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for personal injury and property damage from an auto accident caused by a pothole on a state-maintained highway. The court found the State negligent for allowing the hazardous condition to exist and awarded $16,000.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: Croughan v. State, 29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 434; Manos v. State, 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 639

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

Headnotes

  1. NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (FRANCIS M. DONOVAN, Assistant Attorney General, .of counsel), for Respondent.
  2. HlcnwAYs-pothok-property damage and personal injury-claim allowed. An award was granted for the property damage and personal injuries sustained when the Claimant’s automobile went out of control and struck a utility pole after hitting a pothole in the pavement, since the evidence established that the State was negligent in allowing such a dangerous condition to exist on the highway, that negligence was the proximate cause of the Claimant’s injuries, the State had constructive notice of the condition, and the Claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence.

This is a claim for personal injury sustained by Claimant, as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on March 11, 1979, on Mannheim Road, just south of Zemke Road in the city of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The evidence clearly showed that the State of Illinois was responsible for the maintenance of the highway at that time. The evidence further showed that the road was in a hazardous condition.

It is Claimant’s contention that she was driving her car southward on Mannheim Road near Zemke Road, struck a rough grade and a pothole in the pavement, thereby causing her to lose control of her vehicle, veering off the roadway and striking a utility pole. The car was a total wreck. The accident occurred at approximately 4:30 p.m.

An eyewitness to the accident, Donald Wagner, testified that at the time of the accident, the pothole that Claimant struck was in existence for about a month and that he traveled Mannheim Road daily as a truck driver and learned to slow down and drive on the shoulder of the road to avoid the pothole.

As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered a broken jaw and other injuries to her arm and face. Claimant has a scar across her face approximately 3 inches long. Because of the broken jaw, there is an overlapping portion of scar and a bony pathology which is visible on her face that is a permanent condition and causes much pain in the cold weather. Claimant also has problems eating.

[*81] As to her scar, additional surgery to lessen the appearance of the scar would cost approximately $900.00. Even after surgery the scar would not be erased but would be permanent.

At the time of the accident, Claimant’s car was worth about $850.00. After the accident, Claimant sold her car for scrap for $35.00.

Respondent’s witness, Roman Kostelyna, was employed as the yard technician for the Illinois Department of Transportation at the North Side garage located at Harlem and Irving in Chicago. He testified that the southbound lanes of Mannheim Road fall within the jurisdiction of the North Side garage, that making regular inspections of that section of Mannheim Road I was part of his duties and that during the winter months

I

potholes are patched with cold patch, a temporary type of asphalt material with a life expectancy of only a few weeks. Mr. Kostelyna, having viewed Claimant’s and Respondent’s exhibit of the pothole, described it as a

I

hazard. I

Mannheim Road is regarded as a high density route whose heavy high-speed traffic would knock the cold patch out of the ground. The evidence is to the effect that this was a very poorly maintained highway.

Evidence was introduced to the effect that none of the repairs were of a recent date. It is clear that the State I had actual, as well as constructive, knowledge of the hazardous condition of the highway.

Claimant, before she can recover, must prove she was free from contributory negligence. It is clear from the record that she was traveling*thehighway as any motorist has a right to do and that her driving did not in any manner contribute to the accident. She testified that

I

i [*82] she hit the pothole, went off the road and struck the utility pole.

From the evidence, we find that the State was negligent 'in allowing the pothole, a dangerous condition, to exist on the highway and that the State's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of Claimant's injuries, that this dangerous condition existed for a long period of time, giving the State constructive notice of said dangerous and hazardous condition, and that the Claimant was in the exercise of ordinary care and was not guilty of contributory negligence. Croughan v. State, 29 Ill. Ct. C1. 434; Manos v. State, 30 Ill. Ct. C1. 639.

For her injuries, loss of time and property damages, the Claimant is hereby awarded damages in the sum of sixteen thousand ($16,000.00) dollars.

Official volume 37 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1985 – July 1, 1984–June 30, 1985)  ·  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.