Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Allanc. Larson v. State of Illinois

31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 441 Illinois Court of Claims Filed August 20, 1976 No. 74-25
Disposition: (No. 74-25-Claim denied.) Agency: Illinois Department of Transportation
Cite as: Allanc. Larson v. State of Illinois, 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 441 (1976)
Legacy General 31 denied 1970s Allanc. Larson v. State of Illinois 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 441 August 20, 1976 (No. 74-25-Claim denied.) /opinions/v31-p0489-1/

ALLANC. LARSON,Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for damage to his automobile from a collision with a median strip on a state highway. The court denied the claim because claimant failed to prove he was free from contributory negligence and failed to prove negligence by the respondent.

Claim type: Property Damage

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. HIGHWAYS-bUr&n ofproof. In order for Claimant to recover for alleged property damage, he must prove by preponderance of evidence that he was free from contributory negligence; that Respondent acted or failed to act in a manner amounting to negligence; and that the negligence of the Respondent was the proximate cause of said damage.
  2. SAME-knOWk?dge of defect. Where Claimant failed to show Respondent had, or should have had, knowledge of alleged defect, recovery should be denied.

This claim, sounding in tort, seeks compensation for damages to Claimant’s automobile from a collision with a median strip on a State highway. In prior proceedings in this cause, the Court entered an order dismissing that part of Claimant’s action that pertained to personal injuries. Therefore, the remaining issues considered here relate only to Claimant’s alleged property damage.

[*442] Testimony was heard from two witnesses, Mr. Allan C. Larson, the Claimant, and Mr. Joseph J. Kostur, Regional Safety Claims Administrator for the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation. The evidence also includes Claimant’s two exhibits and numerous exhibits of the Respondent, photographs of the median

I

strip, Respondent’s pavement marking records, and sign shop work orders of the Department of Transportation.

The parties stipulated that the scene of the alleged accident was upon a State highway.

The incident occurred on April 18, 1972, at approximately 10:30 p.m., as the Claimant, Mr. Larson, was driving home from work in his 1968 Oldsmobile northbound on a 4-lane highway, Busse Road, just south of its intersection with Algonquin Road. The weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was dark. The nearest lights were 400 feet away from the scene of the accident.

Mr.Larson testified that his car hit a median strip that he described as gray in color, ten inches high, two-andone-half feet wide; and, that as a result of the collision his car slid across the top of the median and came to a stop. Claimant testified that the presence of the median was not signaled to him by warning signs, nor did he see any yellow stripe markings painted on the median.

Claimant’s car was towed from the scene and subsequently sold for $300.00.

Mr. Kostur testified that the Department of Transportation records indicated that the medians on Busse Road in this area had been marked with yellow paint and reflective glass beads by September 30, 1971, seven months prior to Claimant’s accident. Mr. Kostur also stated that between Illinois routes 72 and 62 (Algonquin Road), there are a total of seven median islands on Busse, marked and painted the same as the median strip in question. Although Mr. Kostur testified that [*443] Respondent’s Exhibit 7 indicated that sign erection on the median was completed on June 18, 1971, he could not specify if any signs were later replaced or repaired.

Claimant’s photo exhibits, taken a week after the incident, show KEEP RIGHT and black and white warning signs in place. Upon viewing Claimant’s Exhibit 1,Mr.

Kostur testified that the paint was badly scraped and marred but, based on his experience, the paint used on the medians should last between a year and a year and a half.

In order for Claimant to recover the alleged property damage, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was free from contributory negligence; that the Respondent acted or failed to act in a manner amounting to negligence; and that the negligence of the Respondent was the proximate cause of said damage.

We find that the Claimant here has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was free from contributory negligence. The photographs in evidence show that the median in question had sufficient paint marking to indicate its presence to a driver approaching it with due care and caution for his own safety. This conclusion is further warranted by the fact that a driver traveling north on Busse Road, as was Mr.

Larson, would have passed similarly marked medians which would indicate the possibility of other such me- j dians ahead.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent had any notice, actual or constructive, of a dangerous condition needing a remedy. In light of the fact that the medians in that area of Busse Road had been painted only seven months prior to the accident, Claimant has also failed to sustain his burden of proving negligence on the part of the Respondent.

[*444] Wherefore, the Court finds that this claim must be and is hereby denied.

Official volume 31 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1976 – July 1, 1975–June 30, 1976; Fiscal Year 1977 – July 1, 1976 – June 30, 1977)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.