Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Feil v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 236 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-04-10 No. 703
Disposition: (No. 703-Claim denied.) Agency: Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings
Cite as: Feil v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 236 (1925)
Legacy General 5 denied 1920s Feil v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 236 1925-04-10 (No. 703-Claim denied.) /opinions/v05-p0256-1/

LOUIS W. FEIL, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for injuries sustained when his car collided with a state-owned truck parked on the highway and obscured by smoke from a fire. The court sustained the state's demurrer and dismissed the case, finding claimant contributorily negligent for driving through smoke at 17-18 mph for 140-150 feet without stopping.

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

  1. RESPONDENT SUPERIOR-State not liable for negligence of its employees.

This is a case for the recovery of injuries sustained by claimant, who sets forth in his declaration that on to-wit: January 23, 1923, he was driving his Oldsmobile touring car on the Lincoln Highway, a state road, his destination being Frankfort, Illinois, and when about eight miles west of Chicago Heights, Illinois, on said Lincoln Highway, the claimant collided with a truck belonging to the State of Illinois used by and under the control of, the Division of Highways of the Department of Public Works and Buildings; that said truck was standing on the right hand side of said Lincoln Highway, but in the roadway; that the person in charge of said truck was in the act of burning some refuse by the side of the highway; that the smoke from said fire obscured from the view of the claimant the said truck and that by reason of said negligence of the operator of said truck in leaving said truck on the highway and also by reason of the negligence of said operator of said truck in making said fire and causing said smoke to obscure the truck from view of the claimant, the claimant collided with the truck and almost entirely demolished his Oldsmobile, and injured claimant. [*287]

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

The court has carefully reviewed all the evidence presented in this case, and we find that there is no liability on the part of the State of Illinois; that claimant is guilty of contributory negligence, and that his contributory negligence, in driving through the smoke, at the rate of seventeen or eighteen miles an hour, and keeping on for about 140 or 150 feet through said smoke until he collided with the truck, was the cause of the accident. There is a conflict in the testimony relative to facts existing at the point of the accident, claimant stating that his view was totally obscured by the smoke, while Rushing testified that he could clearly see the truck twenty or thirty feet away, Rushing being the maintenance foreman and patrolman, employed by the State Division of Highways, and in charge of the Section of the road where the accident occurred.

For the reasons set forth, the demurrer is sustained, and the case dismissed.

Opinion on Rehearing filed January 10, 1927.

The claimant in the above entitled cause has asked for a rehearing of his case. While we have a deep sympathy for this elderly gentleman who was injured while driving on the State highway, we must be guided by the law, and the facts, as we see them. As heretofore stated we believe that this claimant was guilty of contributory negligence, in driving his car through a dense smoke, at the rate of 17 or 18 miles an hour, and keeping on for about 140 to 150 feet through said smoke until he collided with a truck, under the control of the Division of Highways of the Department of Public Works and Buildings. The testimony shows that the operator of the truck saw claimant, although he was 20 or 30 feet away from him, immediately upon the happening of the accident; that another car had passed the truck shortly before the accident occurred, without any difficulty.

The decision heretofore rendered is affirmed.

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.