IHERBERT NANCE, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, I Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for his stolen automobile, allegedly taken by escapees from a correctional center. The court denied the claim because the claimant failed to prove the State was negligent, as the State is not an insurer for escaped prisoners.

Claim type: Property Damage

Cases cited: American States v. State, 23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 47; Volz v. State, 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 201; Paulus v. State, 24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215

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

Headnotes

NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (WILLIAM WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent. I
P RISONERS AND INMATES-escaped inmates-Claimant’s car damagednegligence not proued-claim denied. The Court of Claims denied a claim for damages to an automobile which was stolen by two youths who escaped I from a State correctional center, since the Claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that the damage was the result of the State’s negligence, and the State is not an insurer and there is no absolute liability in the case of damages caused by escaped prisoners.

HERBERT D. NANCE, pro se, for Claimant.

PATCHETT, J.

This case comes on for hearing on a claim for damages regarding a stolen automobile. The Claimant claimed that his car was stolen the night of October 22, 1980, by two youths who escaped from the Dixon Springs Correctional Center. The youths were apprehended in Springfield, Illinois, and the Claimant’s car was found not far from the apartment where the boys were apprehended.

The Claimant sought damages in the sum of $717.66 for damages to his automobile. The amount of damages to his car was not seriously contested.

However, at the hearing held on July 14, 1982, the Claimant clearly failed to meet his burden of proof that the State was negligent. A long line of cases in this Court require that there be proof of the State’s negligence before an award can be made. The State is not an insurer, and there is no absolute liability in the case of escaped prisoners. See American States v . State, 23 Ill. Ct. C1. 47; VoZZ v . State, 33 111. Ct. C1. 201; and PauZus v . State, 24 Ill. Ct. C1. 215.

For the reasons stated above, we hereby deny this claim.