PERCY MONAHAN, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, alleged he was injured when a guard negligently discharged a gun. The court denied the claim, holding that the State is not liable for negligence of its employees in the operation of penal institutions under the doctrine of respondeat superior absent a statute.
Cases cited: Schwab vs. State, 4 C. C. R. 77; Burghardt vs. State, 5 C. C. R. 221; Polka vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 300; Sturrock vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 157; Parks vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 535; Schaefer vs. State, No. 1968; White vs. State, No. 2859; Edward Shilkitis vs. State, No. 2355; Henry F. Meyers vs. State, No. 2782; Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Syllabus - employees of State Penal Institution - State not liable where inmate injured as result of. The State is not liable to respond in damages for personal injuries sustained by inmate of penal institution as the result of the negligence of employees of such institution, as in the conduct of its penal institutions it exercises a governmental function and is not liable for the negligence of its servants or agents, the doctrine of respondent superior not being applicable to the State in the exercise of its governmental functions.
Claimant filed his complaint herein on February 18th, 1937, and alleges therein in substance that on March 25th, 1936 he was an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet; that he was a member of the prison band, and on the last mentioned date was assembled with said band in the dining room of the penitentiary; that he was then and there in the exercise of all due care and caution for his own safety; that one of the guards stationed in said dining room carelessly, negligently and improperly handled a certain gun, whereby the same was discharged and the bullet therefrom struck the claimant in the leg, and as the result thereof he sustained serious and permanent injuries, for which he asks compensation.
The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that the doctrine of respondent superior does not apply to the State in the operation of its penal institutions, and that therefore there is no liability on the part of the State for the injuries sustained by the claimant.
This court has repeatedly held that in the management and operation of its charitable and penal institutions, the [*11] State is engaged in a governmental function, and has also repeatedly held 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 respondent superior in the absence of a statute making it so liable. Schwab vs. State, 4 C. C. R. 77; Burghardt vs. State, 5 C. C. R. 221; Polka vs.
State, 6 C. C. R. 300; Sturrock vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 157; Parks vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 535; Schaefer vs. State, No. 1968, decided at the September, 1935, term of this court; White vs. State, No. 2859, decided at the May, 1936, term of this court; Edward Shilkitis vs. State, No. 2355, decided at the January, 1937, term of this court; Henry F. Meyers vs. State, No. 2782, decided at the present term of this court.
There being no liability on the part of the State if the State were suable, we have no authority to allow an award.
Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207.
The motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the case must therefore be sustained. Motion to dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.