GEORGE MCGREARY AND JOHN DELUISE, Claimants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought compensation for vehicle damage and personal injuries from a collision with a state highway truck, alleging negligence. The court denied the claim, holding that the State is immune from liability for negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent a statute imposing liability.
Cases cited: Elsie Baumgart vs. State, decided at the November Term, 1934; Goldie Ryan vs. State, decided at the January Term, 1935; Bucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241; Braun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104; Chambler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138; Hollenbeck vs. County of Winnebago, 95 Ill. 148; City of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135; Minear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549; Gebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234; 25 R. C. L., p. 407, Sec. 43
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEGLIGENCE-respondent 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.
- PERSONAL INJURY-property damage-negligence of State employee-remedy for. Where complaint alleges that damages were sustained as the result of the negligence of an employee of the State he has his remedy against said employee in courts of general jurisdiction.
The complaint herein alleges that on December 23d, 1934, about six o'clock A. M., claimants were traveling in the automobile of the claimant, George McGready, in a westerly direction on U. S. Highway No. 20, between the cities of Chicago and Elgin; that it was dark and the road was icy and slippery; that one of the highway trucks of the respondent was standing on said highway near the foot of a hill; that as claimants drove over such hill they could not see the aforementioned truck; that no light, lantern or flare was placed on or about such truck; that although claimants were in the exercise of all due care and caution, they could not prevent the car in which they were riding from running, skidding and sliding into the truck of the respondent; that as the result of such collision, the automobile of the claimant McGready was damaged and the claimant John DeLuise sustained personal injuries; for which compensation is sought in this proceeding.
Claimants base their right of action on the negligence of the employees of the State Highway Department in charge of such truck. [*61]
The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the doctrine of respondent superior has no application to the State under the facts alleged in the complaint.
In the maintenance of its durable hard-surfaced roads, the State of Illinois is engaged in a governmental function.
Elsie Baumgart vs. State, decided at the November Term, 1934, of this court; Goldie Ryan vs. State, decided at the January Term, 1935 of this court; Bucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241; Braun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104; Chambler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138.
In the exercise of its governmental functions, there is no liability on the part of the State for the negligence of its servants and agents, in the absence of a statute making it so liable. Hollenbeck vs. County of Winnebago, 95 Ill. 148; City of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135; Minear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549; Gebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234; 25 R. C. L., p. 407, Sec. 43.
There is no statute in this State making the respondent liable under the facts alleged in the complaint, and the motion of the Attorney General must therefore be sustained.
The liability, if any there be, rests upon the employee in charge of the truck in question, and not upon the State.
The motion to dismiss will be allowed. Case dismissed.