Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Pentoskey v. State of Illinois

10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1939-02-01 No. 2611
Disposition: (No. 2611-Claim denied.) Agency: Illinois State Penitentiary
Cite as: Pentoskey v. State of Illinois, 10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152 (1939)
Legacy General 10 denied 1930s Pentoskey v. State of Illinois 10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152 1939-02-01 (No. 2611-Claim denied.) /opinions/v10-p0475-1/

WILLIAM J. PENTOSKEY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a prison guard, sought $10,000 for pain and suffering from injuries sustained during an inmate escape attempt. The court denied the claim because there was no statutory basis for an award and insufficient evidence of disability.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: England vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 69; 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

  1. EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE-WHEN AWARD ON GROUNDS OF MUST BE DENIED. Where claimant, a guard employed at Illinois State Penitentiary makes claim for compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained, while in performance of his duties, as a result of being attacked by prisoners at tempting to escape, on the grounds of equity and good conscience, an award must be denied, no showing being made that claimant comes within provisions of any law making the State liable to him, for compensation for such injuries and claimant cannot invoke principle of equity to secure award.

Claimant, William K. Pentoskey, was a guard at the Illinois State Penitentiary at Stateville, Illinois. On September 10, 1934 while performing his usual duties as a guard claimant was seized by three inmates who were attempting to escape. In the struggle one of such inmates cut one of claimant's nostrils with a knife and he received a bullet wound in the right forearm, also a stab wound on the left side of the chest and two other cuts in his back. The complaint alleges that the knife wound in plaintiff's nostril left a scar about one-half inch in length, but there is no evidence in the record in support of this. The complaint does not specifically seek an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act for either temporary total, partial permanent or specific disability, but seeks an allowance of his claim for Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars in equity and good conscience for pain suffering and physical difficulties in performing his duties subsequent to said attack. There is no bill of particulars attached to the complaint and the latter is not sworn to as required under the rules of court.

The record herein discloses that claimant on the occasion in question apparently conducted himself in a gallant and brave manner. It further discloses that his injuries incapacitated him for twenty (20) days, during which time he was paid his full salary. That thereafter he returned to work and continued to work up to the time of the taking of the [*453] testimony. On March 22, 1937 he was ordered transferred to the Menard Branch of the Penitentiary, but failed to report for duty at that Institution, and according to the official record is no longer employed by the State. There is nothing in the record upon which to grant an award for temporary total disability or for disfigurement or for specific loss. As to total permanent disability, the evidence shows that he returned to his employment at the end of twenty (20) days after the accident and continued therein as above stated to the time of the taking of the testimony. According to his testimony there was no change in his work since the date of his injury, and his discontinuance of such work thereafter was apparently voluntary upon his part, as he was notified to report for duty at Menard and failed to do so. The only evidence that would tend toward authorizing any partial permanent disability award is that of Dr. Frank A. Chmelik, a Doctor at the State Penitentiary, who testified that after an experience such as claimant had a fear is apt to develop in such person causing him to be of a nervous strain.

Dr. Emil J. Visocil testified that he had made one examination of claimant about a week prior to the taking of evidence in the case, and that he found the claimant to be suffering from an umbilical hernia and a left sacro-illiac sprain and of a nervous disposition. That such condition was apparently caused by an injury, and that such condition had the appearance of not having originated in the past few months. That the direct result of all of his condition would be one of nervousness.

No award in the nature of a reward for claimant's conduct can be made by the court. The rule has repeatedly been announced that, "Before a claimant can have an award against the State, he must show that he comes within the provision of some law making the State liable to him for the amount claimed. If he cannot point to some law giving him the right to an award he cannot invoke the principal of equity to secure such award."

England vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 69.

Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207.

As no sufficient proof appears in the record upon which an award could be based, the claim is hereby denied and the same is dismissed. [*130]

SCHOBERT vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS

Official volume 10 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between July 1, 1937–June 30, 1939, and advisory Opinions furnished Illinois Emergency Relief Commission)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.