Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Woodrow v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1929-04-23 No. 1400
Disposition: (No. 1400-Claimant awarded $2,500.00.) Award: $2,500.00
Cite as: Woodrow v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215 (1929)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1920s Woodrow v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215 1929-04-23 (No. 1400-Claimant awarded $2,500.00.) /opinions/v06-p0236-1/

WILLIAM WOODROW, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a teamster employed by the State, was injured when his wagon tipped over on order of a foreman. The court found the injury arose in the course of employment and awarded $2,500.00 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

  1. PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made for injury sustained by a OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

This claimant was injured on Sept. 9th, 1927, while in the employ of the State of Illinois as a teamster and the injury was occasioned through the course of employment. It appears that a foreman ordered him to drive his wagon on a certain point and while so doing the wagon tipped over pinning the claimant beneath the wagon and dirt. It appears that claimant suffered a dislocated right shoulder and other bruises.

There is no dispute about the facts or that it is a case that should be measured under the Workmen's Compensation Act. [*216]

The Attorney General comes and states that if claim is allowed it should be allowed in accordance with the amounts due under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and that would be in the sum of Twenty-five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars.

Therefore the court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Twenty-five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  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.