A. R. HORTON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for injuries from a collision with a National Guard truck, alleging negligence. The court denied the claim, holding the State is not liable for negligence of its agents in exercising governmental functions.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: Petersen vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 9; Shumway vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 43; Sullivan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 140; Childress vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 223

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

NEGLIGENCE-employees of State-Rate never liable for. The State is never liable for injuries sustained, or damage to property, caused by reason of the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of its officers, agents or employees in the exercise of its governmental functions.

HODGES & TRAGETHON, for claimant. GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; JOHN KASSERMAN, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE LINSCOTT delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant seeks damages in the sum of Sixty Dollars and Twenty-five Cents ($60.25), and charges that on October 15, 1935, about 11:00 p. m., he was driving his Ford truck south on Fifth Street in the City of Springfield, and at the intersection of Fifth Street and Capitol Avenue, traffic lights regulated the traffic. Claimant avers that he had the right-of-way, and while in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety, a truck driven by Norman R. Stanton, a member of the National Guard, carelessly and negligently struck him.

The negligence averred is that of running the traffic light.

This again raises the question of the liability of the State for the negligent acts of its agents.

This court, the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Illinois have repeatedly held that the State is not liable for the injuries complained of by reason [*454] of the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of its officers or agents in the exercise of its governmental functions.

Petersen vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 9; Shumway vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 43; Sullivan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 140; Childress vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 223.

The motion to dismiss filed by the Attorney General will, therefore, be sustained, and the award denied.