Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Baratona v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 556 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-14 No. 1086
Disposition: (No. 1086-Claimant awarded $1,560.00.) Award: $1,560.00
Cite as: Baratona v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 556 (1931)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s Baratona v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 556 1931-05-14 (No. 1086-Claimant awarded $1,560.00.) /opinions/v06-p0585-2/

JOHN BARATONA, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a laborer on the Brandon Road Pool project, suffered an injury to his left eye arising out of and in the course of his employment. The court awarded him $1,560.00, computed at $13.00 per week for 120 weeks, finding that loss of 75% of vision is equivalent to loss of the eye for practical purposes.

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 INJURIES-when award will be made. Where claimant sustains

Claimant was employed by the State as a laborer on Brandon Road Pool, being Project No. 6 of the Illinois Waterway. While engaged in his work, on November 18, 1929, he received an injury to his left eye which arose out of and in the course of his employment. It is conceded by the Attorney General that claimant is entitled to an award, and both parties agree the award should be computed on the basis of $13.00 per week for 120 weeks. The Attorney General insists that claimant has only suffered the loss of 75 per cent of the vision of the eye and that the award should be made on that basis. One who has lost 75 per cent of the vision of an eye has, for all practical purposes, lost the sight of that eye and we think the award should be on that basis. Claimant is, therefore, awarded the sum of $1,560.00.

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.