GUST CARLSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES NELSON, DECEASED v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Case summary
The administrator of Charles Nelson's estate claimed $10,000 for his death while employed by the State. The court followed Minnie Johnson v. State, sustaining the State's demurrer on governmental immunity, but recommended an award of $3,750 as a matter of equity and social justice.
Cases cited: Minnie Johnson v. State
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION-Minnie Johnson v. State, supra, followed.
GUST CARLSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES NELSON,
DECEASED
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed November 28, 1922.
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION-Minnie Johnson v. State, supra, followed.
This case is similar to that of Minnie Johnson v. State, supra, and the decision of the Court as there announced governs this claim.
Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State.
This is a case wherein Gust Carlson, Administrator of the estate of Charles Nelson, deceased, files a claim for the sum of $10,000.00, by reason of the death of said Charles Nelson, while in the employment of the State of Illinois.
The testimony in this case is identically the same as in the case of Minnie Johnson v. State of Illinois, with the exception of the date of the death and the dependents.
The testimony in this case shows that there are the following dependents left, him surviving, Lina Nelson, widow, Myrtle L. Nelson, Walter M. Nelson and Grant C. Nelson, his children, as his sole heirs at law and next of kin, and all of whom were dependents upon him for their support.
The Attorney General has filed a demurrer to said petition, which is sustained by this Court.
That the State of Illinois is not liable for injuries sustained by, or for the death of its employees while in the performance of their duties, has been decided by this Court in numerous cases.
However, as a matter of equity and social justice an award should be made in this case, and the Court recommends an award in the sum of three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($3,750.00).