JAMESE. HUSBAND, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged malpractice by nurses at the State Hospital, but the complaint lacked sufficient facts and was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court dismissed the complaint.
Statutes cited: 1953 Ill. Rev. Stats., Chap. 83, Sec. 15; Chap. 37, Sec. 439.22
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- JURISDICTION-~imitUtiO~S. Where it appears on the face of a complaint that an injury was sustained more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint, case will be dismissed under Sec. 22 of the Court of Claims-Act.
- I I
A complaint, consisting of Two Counts, was filed herein by claimant, James E. Husband, on September 24, 1954. On January 28, 1955, a motion was filed by claimant for summary judgment, and, on February 25, 1955, an order was entered by this Court denying said motion.
[*200] On March 25, 1955, respondent filed a motion to strike and dismiss claimant’s complaint, and, on April 11, 1955, a motion to disallow the suggestion of respondent was filed by elaimant.
Count I of the complaint was predicated upon allegations of malpractice of nurses employed by respondent at the State Hospital, Chester, Illinois. However., in said Count no allegations are set forth of negligence of respondent’s agents, or of any injury received by claimant, while an inmate at Chester, Illinois. Had there been sufficient facts set forth to constitute a malpractice case, Count I would have to be denied for the reason that claimant alleges in paragraph 3 the tortious acts were committed prior to August of 1952, which was more than two years prior to the filing of claimant’s complaint.
Rule 31 of the Court of Claims, at the time this claim was filed, provided for a two year limitation of claims of this nature, which conforms to the limitations statute of the State of Illinois for the filing of claims within a period of two years from the date the action accrued, 1953 Ill. Rev. Stats., Chap. 83, See. 15; Chap. 37, See. 439.22.
Count I of the complaint is also indefinite, uncertain and vague.
As to Count 11, the allegations set forth therein clo not constitute a cause of action against respondent, and, if there was a claim, it would be barred by the statute of limitations, Chap. 37, See. 439.22, 111. Rev.
Stats.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the complaint filed herein be dismissed,