Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Corcoran v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 569 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-14 No. 1722
Disposition: (No. 1722-Claimant awarded $150.00.) Award: $150.00
Cite as: Corcoran v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 569 (1931)

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

Case summary

Claimant sought $500 for injuries from falling into a ditch during Illinois Waterway construction. The court awarded $150 with the Attorney General's consent, noting inadequate warnings and protections.

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. Where claimant sustained OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made. Where claimant sustained injuries by falling into an excavation of the Illinois Waterway, an award is recommended upon the consent of the Attorney General. BARR & BARR, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARITY delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by claimant on March 4th, 1929, when he fell into a ditch being dug by the State in the construction of the Illinois Waterway. Damages are asked in the sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.

There has been showing made that proper signals were not given and proper protection made against this kind of an accident. However the court will not discuss these features because the Attorney General comes and consents to an allowance of One Hundred and Fifty ($150.00) Dollars.

Therefore the court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) 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.