Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Bruce J. Osher v. State of Illinois

34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1981-04-15 No. 81-CC-0630
Disposition: (No. 81-CC-0630-Claim denied.)
Cite as: Bruce J. Osher v. State of Illinois, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 (1981)
General Court of Claims 34 denied 1980s Bruce J. Osher v. State of Illinois 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 1981-04-15 (No. 81-CC-0630-Claim denied.) /opinions/v34-p0374-2/

BRUCE J. OSHER, Claimant, 2). THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant alleged negligence by the State causing personal injuries. The court denied the claim because the notice requirements of section 22-1 were not complied with, and claimant's motion to vacate the dismissal was not granted as waiver was not shown.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22-1

Cases cited: Elliston v. State of Illinois (no citation given)

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

Headnotes

  1. TYRONE C. FAHNER, Attorney General (J OHN R. FANONE,Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
  2. NEGLIGENCE-Waiver relating to municipalities with insurance is not applicable to State. The Claimant's motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint based on negligence due to the lack of proper notice was denied, where the Claimant argued that a waiver of the notice requirements existed because of the presence of insurance coverage, since the waiver relating to municipalities with insurance is inapplicable to the State.

This claim arose out of several alleged acts of negligence on the part of the State which were said to have caused Claimant severe and permanent personal injuries. On December 10, 1980, we entered an order granting a motion by Respondent to dismiss on grounds that the notice requirements of section 22-1 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22-1), were not complied with.

Claimant moved to vacate said order and, in support of his motion, argued that a waiver might have occurred, and requested an additional 45 days to ascertain its existence. Respondent objected on two grounds: the first attaching the timeliness of Claimant’s motion to vacate, and the second being directed to Claimant’s argument for a waiver.

We do not find it necessary to address the first objection by Respondent. Even if we assume that the motion to vacate was filed on time and that insurance existed, we have held in Elliston ‘o. State of ZZZinois, No.

Official volume 34 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1981 – July 1, 1980–June 30, 1981)  ·  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.