WILLIAM B. STANFORD, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Opinion. filed January 12, 19@. SMITH, MCCOLLOM & RIGGLE, f o r claimant.
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for burns from a fluoroscope demonstration at a state teachers college. The court denied the claim, holding the State was engaged in a governmental function and not liable for negligence of its employees absent a statute.
Cases cited: Wood vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 501
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- EASTERN ILLINOIS STATE TEACHERS’ COLLEGE-COndZLCt of, governmental fzrnctzon. In the conduct of the Eastern Illinois State Teachers’ College the State exercises a governmental function. Sa&m-negligence of oficers, agents or employees of-Ntate‘not liable for. The State i n the conduct and maintenance of Eastern Illinois State Teachers’ College exercises a governmental function, and it is not liable to respond in damages for personal injuries suffered by a student of said College, occasioned by the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of the officers, teachers, agents, employees or students thereof, the rule of respondeat superior not being applicable to the State.
- SAm-sum-claim for damages o n grounds of equity and good conscience- award canmot be made. An award on t h e grounds of equity and good conscience cannot be made, where claim is predicated on the negligence of officers, agents or employees of the State, while in the performance of a governmental function as the State would not be liable at law or in equity, if i t were suable on such claim.
This claim was filed on September 4, 1942. Claimant alleges that he is a resident of the State of Illinois; that on October 9, 1940 he was regularly enrolled as a student in the Eastern Illinois State Teachers ’ College at Charleston, Illinois; that on said date he was directed by a teacher of the said institution to subject himself to the use of a fluoroscope device for the purpose of demonstrating to the other students the proper use of said fluoroscope; that as a result of such demonstration claimant was severely burned by fluoroscopic rays, causing great pain and permanent injury.
Claimant asks damages in the sum of Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-nine and 80/100 Dollars ($11,879.80) for medical attention, hospitalization, traveling expenses to doctors and hospital, loss of time and earnings, suffering and permanent injury.
Respondent moves to dismiss this claim and, in support of the motion, submits that the claim is predicated on the alleged liability of respondent while engaged in a govern[*361]mental function, because of negligent and wrongful acts of its officers, agents or employees.
This court has repeatedly held that the State in the conduct of its penal and charitable institutions is engaged in a governmental function, and that in the exercise of such functions it is not responsible for the acts of its servants and agents in the absence of a statute making it so liable.
Wood vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 501.
The State, in the exercise of a governmental function, is not liable for injuries to persons resulting from the negligence of its officers, agents or employees, and an award as a matter of social justice cannot be allowed when the State mould not be liable in law or equity if it &ere suable. There is no theory'of law upon which an award in this case could be based. There being no legal liability on the part of the State, we have no authority to allow an award.
The motion of respondent to dismiss must, therefore, be and is hereby allowed, and the claim is dismissed.