GEORGE N. CRAWFORD AND C. J. CLYMER, Claimants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought $425 for hay and manure destroyed by a fire that spread from a state road crew's brush burning. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the State is not liable for negligence of its employees absent a statute, and that 'equity and good conscience' does not create liability.
Statutes cited: Paragraph 4 of Section 6 of the Court of Claims Act
Cases cited: Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207; Gibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wal. 269; U. S. vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheaton 720; Jorgensen vs. State, 2 C. C. R. 134; Reliable Coal & Mining Co. vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 56
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PROPERTY DAMAGE-negligence of State Highway employees-claim under grounds of equity and good conscience, denied. Where claim is for destruction of hay alleged to have been caused by negligence of State Highway employees engaged in burning brush in permitting fire to spread to claimants' land, an award on the grounds of equity and good conscience will be denied under authority of Crabtree vs. State, 7 Court of Claims Reports, page 207.
Claimants allege that on March 1, 1933, they were the owners of ten acres of hay land and one hundred loads of manure, located on the farm of George N. Crawford in Lee County, Illinois; that the State, through its employees, while engaged in repairing and clearing S. B. I. Route No. 6 and [*286] while engaged in burning brush and dead grass, negligently suffered a fire to be unattended and suffered same to spread over the said lands, and that thereby ten acres of hay and approximately one hundred tons of manure on said land were burned and destroyed, all to the total value of $425.00.
The State has filed a motion to dismiss the claim, for the reason that the declaration does not state a sufficient cause of action against the State, whereby an award could legally be made.
Counsel for the claimants has filed a reply brief, wherein they state, that while there might be no legal basis for a claim, yet in equity and good conscience, claimants should be paid damages herein. In support of their contention, they have cited a number of cases wherein this court, as previously constituted, has held that "while no legal liability existed, wherein an award might be made, yet in 'equity and good conscience' an award would be made on the ground of social justice."
The construction which this court believes it should place upon its jurisdictional rights, has been set forth in the case of "Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207" and for brevity, reference is made thereto. Provision of Paragraph 4 of Section 6 of the Court of Claims Act with reference to "equity and good conscience," merely defines the jurisdiction of the court, and does not create a new liability against the State, nor does it increase any existing liability. The jurisdiction of the court is limited to claims under which the State would be liable, in law or equity, if it were suable, and if the claimant fails to bring himself within the provision of some law giving him the right to an award, he cannot invoke the principles of "equity and good conscience" to secure one.
"It is a rule of almost universal application, that no government is liable for the negligence or misfeasance of its officers and agents in the absence of a Statute making it liable. Gibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wal. 269; U. S. vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheaton 720; Jorgensen vs. State, 2 C. C. R. 134; Reliable Coal & Mining Co. vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 56."
As the declaration does not state a cause of action against the State, the motion to dismiss is allowed and the claim dismissed.