Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

J. a. Eisele v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 151 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-05-01 No. 792
Disposition: (No. 792-Claim denied.) Agency: Department of Public Works and Buildings
Cite as: J. a. Eisele v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 151 (1925)

J. A. EISELE, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for a collision with a state-owned truck, alleging negligence by the driver. The court sustained the state's demurrer, finding the claimant's driver contributorily negligent due to excessive speed in wet conditions.

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. NON-LIABILITY OF STATE-State not liable for negligence of its employees.

NON-LIABILITY OF STATE-State not liable for negligence of its employees. The State is not liable for the negligence of its employees. J. E. MALONE, JR., for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; A. E. CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE LEACH delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on a declaration filed by J. A. Eisele, in which he alleges that on October 27, 1922, while [*152] GEBHART v. STATE OF ILLINOIS. driving his Packard touring car from the city of LaSalle, LaSalle county, Illinois, to Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, traveling upon the cement road known as Temporary Route 7, and at a point upon said State road about twelve miles east of the city of Morris, Grundy county, Illinois, said Packard touring car was damaged by collision with a large truck owned, controlled and used by the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, in the maintenance and upkeep of State roads, and claimant alleges that accident occurred through the negligence and carelessness of the driver of said truck.

The State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

From the testimony, which has been carefully examined, it appears that the driver of said Packard car, J. A. Fische, was driving at the rate of 35 miles an hour; that it was a wet, rainy morning; that he attempted to pass the truck above mentioned, which truck was traveling at the rate of about ten miles an hour; that when he saw he was unable to pass said truck, he turned to the right and applied his brakes and that it was impossible at that time to avoid a collision. We believe that the driver of the said Packard car was guilty of contributory negligence, disregarding weather conditions, and traveling at a high rate of speed; hence the demurrer filed by the Attorney General is sustained.

Official volume 5 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1923–June 30, 1927)  ·  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.