Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Conway v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 342 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1929-11-07 No. 1357
Disposition: (No. 1357-Claim denied.) Agency: Illinois Department of Highways
Cite as: Conway v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 342 (1929)
Legacy General 6 denied 1920s Conway v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 342 1929-11-07 (No. 1357-Claim denied.) /opinions/v06-p0363-1/

GEORGE CONWAY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for a collision with a State truck at an intersection. The court found that both drivers likely failed to exercise ordinary care and denied the claim.

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. NON LIABILITY OF THE STATE-when State is not liable. Where it appears from the evidence that ordinary care was not exercised the State is not liable for damages by reason of a collision with a State truck.

It appears that claimant, a married man having no children, was driving south on Scott Street in the City of Joliet on March 5th, 1928, and as he approached the intersection of Scott and Jackson Streets, from the north he claimed he slowed down and looked to the right and saw nothing except a State truck nearly a block away. Seeing no other cars he shifted gears and ran into the intersection at an increasing rate of speed. It is claimed the State truck, a Ford, without a speedometer, was being driven east by a laborer hired by the Highway Department. There was a collision. The State of Illinois contends that the employee of the State was on the right and states that there is conflicting evidence as to the speed of the car which the court is inclined to believe to be the case.

This court is of the opinion that if the drivers of these cars exercised ordinary care that no accident would have occurred. The court does not believe that the State of Illinois [*313] should be held responsible for an accident based upon the facts as set out in this case.

Therefore it is ordered by the court that the claim be disallowed.

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.