ITHOMAS J. FLISK, Claimant, os. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for personal injuries but had already received $6,300 from joint wrongdoers, which exceeded the $2,500 tort liability cap, so the court denied the claim.
Cases cited: Aldridge vs. Norris, 337 Ill. App. 369
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- DAMAQES-peTSOnd injuriesrecouery jrom joint tort feasor. Where claimant recovers an amount equal to the total maximum allowed by the State of Illinois from a joint tort feasor, no damages can be allowed by the Court of Claims.
This claim arises out of the same set of facts as those set forth in consolidated cases Nos. 4393 and 4394, wherein William Winston and Patrick Clancy are claimants.
A detailed statement of facts surrounding the occurrence, medical testimony, and resulting disability of the claimant will not be necessary for a decision.
The maximum tort liability of respondent in this case is $2,500.00. It is admitted claimant has received the sum of $6,300.00 from persons deemed jointly responsible for his injuries. This amount, under the authority of the State of Illinois, would have to be deducted from any sum allowed by this Court; and hence no damages could be awarded.
[*364] A collection of authorities on this point is found in Aldridge vs. Norris, 337 Ill. App. 369, the rule being that when suit is brought against one joint wrongdoer, the amount paid by another joint wrongdoer is to be credited on any liability, which may be found to exist against the one sued. \ For this reason, the claim will be denied.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
SCHUMAN, C. J. This case is to be considered in conjunction with the opinion rendered in consolidated cases Nos. 4393 and 4394, wherein William Winston and Patrick Clancy were claimants. The opinion in that case as to the law applicable to the facts applies here, and the claim would have to be denied on the theory therein established.
The additional point established in this case was to announce the law as to the amount that could be recovered in a case authorizing recovery.
For the reasons advanced, the petition for rehearing is denied.