MATTIE B. JONES, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $10,000 for injuries from a car accident allegedly due to negligent highway maintenance. The court denied the claim, holding the State immune from tort liability in the exercise of governmental functions absent a statute waiving immunity.
Cases cited: Chambler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138; Stoddard vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 27; Bucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241; Baumgart vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 220; City of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135; Mincar vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549; Gebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234; Braun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104; Ryan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 361
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- 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 caused by either a defect in the construction or failure to maintain same in a safe condition.
- NEGLIGENCE-personal injury. The State is never liable for the negligence of its servants or agents, in the absence of a statute making it so liable and where complaint shows that claim is based on such negligence there can be no award.
On June 25th, 1932 claimant was driving an automobile in a northerly direction on S. B. I. Route 44. At a point just southeast of the corporate limits of the city of Manhattan, she lost control of the car on account of wet pavement there, and the car skidded onto the shoulder of the highway, and toppled into a drainage ditch located on said highway at a distance of about eleven feet from the concrete slab. Claimant alleges that as a result of such accident she sustained severe and permanent injuries, and on August 23th, 1934 filed her complaint in this court in which she asks for an award in the amount of $10,000.00 for the injuries so sustained. Claimant bases her right of recovery upon the alleged negligence of the respondent in the maintenance of its said highway, and particularly with reference to the shoulder thereof, and the drainage ditch immediately adjacent thereto. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case on the ground that there is no liability on the part of the respondent under the facts set forth in the complaint. In the maintenance of its hard-surfaced roads, the State is engaged in the exercise of a governmental function. Chambler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138. Stoddard vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 27. Bucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241. Baumgart vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 220. [*311] The law is well settled that in the exercise of its governmental functions, the State is not liable for the negligence of its servants and agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior, in the absence of a statute making it so liable.
City of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135.
Mincar vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549.
Gebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234.
Braun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104.
Chambler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138.
Bucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241.
Baumgart vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 220.
Ryan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 361. There is no statute making the State liable in cases of this kind, and the motion of the Attorney General must therefore be sustained.
Motion sustained. Case dismissed.