JOE BONER AND HARRISON BONER, CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS BONER BROTHERS, Claimants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought $215.45 for damage to their truck allegedly caused by a state snow plow operator's negligence. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the State is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Cases cited: George McGready, et al. vs. State, No. 2604
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEGLIGENCE-respondeat superior. The State is not liable for the negligence of its servants or agents unless there is a statute making it so liable and in this State there is no such statute.
- HIGHWAYS-maintenance of, governmental function. The State exercises a governmental function in the construction and maintenance of public highways and is not liable for damages occasioned by the negligence of its servants or agents in the construction or maintenance of same.
- PROPERTY DAMAGE-complaint asking award for-when will be dismissed. Where complaint shows that claim is based on negligence of employee of State in maintenance of highway, no cause of action is stated and motion to dismiss will be sustained.
Claimants allege in their complaint that they are the owners of a certain Dodge truck; that on February 28th, 1934, about two o'clock P. M., said truck was being driven by their servant and agent in an easterly direction on S. B. I. Route No. 13, near the Village of Crab Orchard in Williamson County, at a speed of about twenty-five miles per hour; that at the same time and place one of the employees of the respondent was operating a certain snow plow owned by the respondent; that as the result of the carelessness and negligence of the employee of the respondent in charge of such snow plow, the same struck and collided with the truck of the claimants, whereby the same was damaged to the extent of $215.45, for which amount claimants ask an award.
The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case for the reason that there is no liability on the part of the respondent under the facts set forth in the complaint; the State not being liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The same question was presented in the case of George McGready, et al. vs. State, No. 2604, decided at the present term of this court, and in that case we held that the motion to dismiss should be allowed. [*56]
For the reasons set forth in the McGready case, the motion of the Attorney General to dismiss is allowed. Case dismissed.