WILLIAX F. GIBBS, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for a car accident allegedly caused by missing warning signs near a road excavation. The court denied the claim, finding the State was not negligent because poor visibility from heavy rain, not the lack of signs, was the proximate cause of the collision.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEGLIGENCE+wkWe cluint will be denied. Where t h e claimant was driving his automobile i n daylight on U. S. Route 36, through a tor: reatial rain, and his automobile hit the rear of another which had stopped a t a barricade t o allow 0thel.l cars to pass, resulting i n damage to claimant’s automobile, it was held that he failed t o establish the elements necessary to recovery, namely: (1) that claimant was in the exercise of due care and caution . for the safety of his automobile; (2) that the State of Illinois was negligent a s charged i n t h e complaint; and that the negligence of the State of Illinois was the proximate cause of the injury and damages to the automobile of the claimant. (3) that claimant sustained damages.
- PROXIMATE cAusE-Signs on barricade were sufficient under normal circumstances, and accident was due to poor visibility caused by torrential rain.
The facts show that on June 25th, 1948, William Gibbs was driving his 1948 -Buick Automobile west on U. S. Route 36, a short distance from the Village of Curran in Sangamon County, Illinois; that it was around 5:30 in the afternoon and daylight; that claimant was driving 35 miles per hour.
The sworn complaint alleges that two cars had stopped at the barricade and that a torrential rain was falling rendering visibility very poor.
The departmental report showed that barricades were placed east of the excavation in question; that east of the barricade pavement alignment was straight a distance of 1172 feet and then follows a 6" degree curve to the left for a distance of 440.3 feet.
The undisputed evidence shows that a torrential rain was falling, and visibility was poor; that two cars had stopped at the barricade to wait for oncoming traffic and that claimant struck the last stopped car; that claimant came upon the Cadillac immediately after rounding the curve.
Claimant testified the Cadillac stopped suddenly.
However, the record shows a straight highway for a distance of 1172 feet.
In order for claimant to recover he must prove three distinct elements, namely: [*23]
I
! - (1) that claimant was in the exercise of due care and caution for the safety of his automobile; li I the State of Illinois was the proximate cause of the I injury and damages to the automobile of claimant; I (3) that claimant sustained damages. I ! The claimant alleges there were no warning signs east of the barricade, or if signs were in place, they were l
I
so located as to be valueless.
The only evidence in the record as to signs is that I
I
I
barricades were placed east of first excavation. It is apparent that under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient. Claimant was driving in a torrential rain
I
I
with visibility poor and it is apparent the lack of signs was not the proximate cause of the accident. Two cars had stopped at the barricade. There was 1172 feet of clear road after rounding curve, and it is apparent due to poor visibility claimant did not see the stopped Cadillac due to said visibility. I The claimant having failed to prove any negligence ‘ I
I
on the part of the State of Illinois that was th? proximate I
I
cause of the accident his claim will be denied.