Upchurch v. State of Illinois — 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 92

DAVID MARCELLUS UPCHURCH, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for a broken leg suffered while working as a gardener at Watertown State Hospital. The court awarded $300.00, applying principles of social justice to provide benefits similar to those under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

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

Headnotes

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR-doctrine not applicable to the State. Under the SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY-award may be made. While the State is not

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR-doctrine not applicable to the State. Under the doctrine of Respondent Superior the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY-award may be made. While the State is not liable, an award may be made to an injured employee, as a matter of social justice and equity. K. C. RONALDS, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; GEORGE C. DIXON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARITY delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover compensation for injuries to the claimant while employed as a gardener for the Watertown State Hospital. It appears that while in the course of his employment he jumped from a wagon and broke his left leg above the ankle.

As a matter of law, the demurrer filed by the defendant should be sustained, but as a matter of social justice and according to the position heretofore taken by this court, that employees of the State should have the same benefits that would accrue to them under the Workmen's Compensation Act, were they employed by private corporations.

It appears from the record that the injury occurred on October 9, 1922, and that, according to the custom of the department under which he was working, he was allowed a month's salary. Therefore, his compensation should only begin November 9, 1922. He was paid $75.00 per month, with room and board, by the State, and before he was employed by the State he received not to exceed $1200.00 per year. It appears to the court that he ought to be allowed a compensation for about six months.

It is therefore ordered that the claimant be allowed the sum of $300.00.