Kurt Jonatat and Loretta Jonatat v. State of Illinois

Claimants bring this action to recover damages to a home and personal property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jonatat allegedly caused by the escape of two inmates from the Illinois State Training School for Boys at St. Charles, Illinois. Neither the facts nor the amount of damages are in dispute.

[*163] One of the claimants, Mr. Kurt Jonatat, testified that on or about February 7, 1967, he was in Florida on a vacation. On that day, he received a call from his daughter telling him that his house had been broken into and that he should come home immediately. Upon returning home, he found his house in shambles, which daniagc as he latcr discovcwd was the result of a gun battle between police officcrs and two escaped inmates.

Mr. Joseph J . McGovern, the assistant superintendent of the Illinois State Training School for Boys testified that he took part in the search for the two escaped boys and discovered that they had broken a window and entered the Jonatat home. He further testified that an attempt was made to coax the boys from the home, but the attempt failed and the gun battle, which did damage to the home, resulted.

The remainder of Mr. McGovern’s testimony dealt with the escape and the normal security precautions taken by the training school. He testified that the school is fenced with a fence 16 feet high with barbed wire 2 feet high on the top of it, and that the entire enclosed area is patrolled by three radio cars.

All of the boys with a previous history of being an escape risk are housed in cottages inside the fence. Each cottage has house parents, a man and a woman, and an assistant house parent. The inmates in the instant case were according to Mr. McGovern, housed in such a cottage.

Mr. McGovern conducted an investigation to discover what had occurred at the time of the escape. It was learned that the boys in this particular cottage were going to the gymnasium that evening to play basketball. The cottage father lined the boys up in the basement, opened the basement door and started to walk out of the basement. At that time, the two boys in the front of the line broke and ran. The cottage father went back into the building and [*164]

notified thc switchboard operator, who then notified a

guard in his parked radio car in front of the cottage.

Thc testimony points out that the standard procedure

in moving from one cottage to another would be to walk

the .boys .in twos. Then when they would get out .of thc

=budding, -a =deyuty=or=guard=in-a -radio =Gar=wodd=k&w

them don7n to the gymnasium with the cottage parents. -W-hen-an enq)loye(+arns that-a- bogi-has-escat,ed, -he-~nust

notify the switchboard. The switchboard then is to irn

mediately notify the deputy in the radio car.

In order for the claimants-to recover, they must-show negligence on the part of the respondent, for, as a review of the cases decided by this court points out, the mere proof of an escape followed by subsequent damages, \fill not sustain , an award. Padus vs. State of Illinois, 24 C.C.R. 215 and Dixon -Fruit Co. vs. State of Illinois, 22-C.C;K. 271.

inois State -School for-Boys is -not an -inst-itiition which can be classified as a penitentiary and any alleged negligence must be determined in-thelight tsf the standard security procedures -instituted by the respondent for a school of this nature. It appears from the mxord that if tk73 security guard had placed himself at the rear of thc building, where he should have been in order to observe the boys exiting, the avenue of escape taken by the boys would have been cut off. It would also appear that the standard procedurc precludes direct contact with the security guard by the cottage parent although the guard, as in this instance, was only a € c w feet am721y. This negligence gave the-boys ample time to scale the fence and escape.

The record shows that $6,=3.00 was paid by intervenor, Kane County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, to claima~i~s, and that clairiiants inciirred and paid an additional slim of $384174 as a resdt of the incident.

The damages caused were the proximate result of t h c [*165]

165.

negligence of the respondent. An award is therefore inudc to the intervenor, Kane County M utiial Fire Insiiranccx Company of $6,233.00 and to the Jonatats in the airmint of $384.74.

( No . 5415-Claitnant :i\v:irdcd $500.00.)

LAWRENCE GOLDRING,

Claimant, us. STATE OF I LLINOIS ,

Respondent.

Opinion filrtl April 27. 1971.

GREENBERG, JANSSEN AND BECKER,A ttorncys for Claiiiiant.

E.

W ILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attoriiey General; W I I ~ L I A M WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for 1icsl)ondent.

PRISONERS AND INhlATKS-hltrdtfl Of tJrO(Jf. St;ltt’ i S Iiabk for d;IIII;I~(Y(llli\’ if negligent in allo\viiig inriiatc to csc:q)c’ f r o it i i in institiitioii.

BURKS,J .

This is a claim for damage to claimant’s property caused by an inmate who had escaped from respondent’s mental institution, Peoria State Hospital.

Following the hearing on this matter which was held in Peoria on October 30, 1967, and an investigation conducted by respondent, the latter filed a’stipulation stating that the facts as set out in claimant’s brief, filed June 14, 1968, are a fair and true representation of the facts developed by thc evidence.

The facts stated in claimant’s brief, which respondent has admitted, may be summarized as follows: at 10:,%a.m. on March 16, 1967, one Arnold Eugene Hoff, a mental patient and inmate at Peoria State Hospital, came to thc used car lot owned and-operated by the clainianf in Bartonville. The said inmate, who talked only with his hands, by gestures indicated to clairnant’s lot boy, onc’ Oran [*166] Brokaw, that he wanted the lot boy to start a 1959 Chevrolet automobile parked in the front row of cars facing the street. Patient made the lot boy understand by gestures that he merely wanted to “hear” the car’s motor run. The lot boy complied with the patient’s request but did not give him permission to drive the car. The patient got into the car; raced the motor a couple of times; put the car in gear; backed up a little bit and then took off forward across the sidewalk, across the curb and down the street weaving. Five blocks north of the lot from which the patient had taken the car, without claimant’s consent, he crashed the vehicle into Bartonville’s World War I1 Memorial Monument. The car was totally wrecked and claimant’s resultant financial loss was $500.00.

Records of the Peoria State Hospital indicate that its patient, Arnold Eugene Hoff, was issued a ground pass which made it possible for him to escape from the institution. The same records show that Hoff had escaped on prior occasions and each time had wrongfully converted other automobiles to his own use and caused them to be damaged.

Claimant’s conclusion, which respondent tacitly concedes by its stipulation, is that respondent’s institution was negligent in issuing a grounds pass to this particular patient, in the light of his record, and that such negligence was the direct or proximate cause of claimant’s loss.

Respondent stated that its stipulation and recommendation were made in accordance with Ch. 23, Sec. 4041, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1969, which reads as follows:

Q 4041. Claims

Whenever a claim is filed with the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Public Safety, the Youth Commission or the Department of Youth, as the case may be, for damages resulting from personal injuries or damages to property, or both, or for [*167] damages resulting from property being stolen, heretofore or hereafter canscd by an inmate who has escaped from a charitable, penal, reformatory or other institution over which the State of Illinois has control while he was at liberty after his escape, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Public Safety, the Youth Commission or the Department of Youth, as the case may be, shall conduct an investigation to determine the cause, nature and extent of the damages and if it be found after investigation that the damage was caused by one who had been an inmate of such institution and had escaped, the Department or Commission may recommend to the Court of Claims that an award be made to the injured party, and the Court of Claims shall have the power to hear and determine such claims.

Since the Court also finds that the facts give no indication of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, he is entitled to recover the amount of his loss.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $500.00.