WILLIAM J. JEANGUENAT, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant originally sued the city of Peru and Mark S. Mills in circuit court, obtaining a $5,000 jury verdict against Mills and executing a release. The Court dismissed the claim against the State, holding that the release of one joint tortfeasor releases all joint tortfeasors.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: Elberstett v. Country Mutual Insurance Company (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 407; McGill v. State of Illinois, 29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 450

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

Headnotes

NEGLIGENCE-release of one tortfeaior releases all.
SAME-stUte was released by Claimant’s release of joint-tortfeasor. Law is well settled in Illinois that release of one tortfeasor releases all jointtortfeasors and suit against the State was required to be dismissed since record showed that suit had originally been filed in the circuit court and was settled there by the release and satisfaction executed by the joint-tortfeasor sued in that court, thereby releasing the State from any obligation, notwithstanding the fact that the joint-tortfeasors had been sued in a different forum.

LOUIS E. OLIVERO, for Claimant. TYRONE C . FAHNER, Attorney General (ANTHONY C. RACCUGLIA,Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

HOLDERMAN, J.

Claimant originally filed a suit in the circuit court of La Salle County against the city of Peru, an Illinois corporation, and Mark S. Mills. The city of Peru, an Illinois corporation, was dismissed out on motion. On August 24,1978, Claimant was awarded a jury verdict in the amount of $5,000.00 against Mark S. Mills. This amount was paid to Claimant and a release and satisfaction of judgment was executed at the time of payment.

It is Respondent’s position that the release of one tortfeasor is the release of all. In support of its position, Respondent cites the case of Elberstett v. Country Mutual lnsurunce Company (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 407, and McGill v . State of Illinois, 29 Ill. Ct. C1.450. In the McGill case, the Court held that “the law is well established in this state, as respondent suggests, that the release of one tort-feasor releases all joint tort-feasors” and refers to Illinois Law 81 Practice Releases 425. The Court further held that although the joint-tortfeasors were sued in different forums, this did not change the rule.

It is hereby ordered that this case be, and the same is, dismissed.