Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Jonathan Henderson v. State of Illinois

44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 180 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1991-12-02 No. 87-CC-0012
Disposition: (No. 87-CC-0012-Claim dismissed.)
Cite as: Jonathan Henderson v. State of Illinois, 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 180 (1991)
General Court of Claims 44 dismissed 1990s Jonathan Henderson v. State of Illinois 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 180 1991-12-02 (No. 87-CC-0012-Claim dismissed.) /opinions/v44-p0286-1/

JONATHAN HENDERSON, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant alleged negligence in roadway maintenance by a unit of local government to which the State had delegated its duty. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the State could delegate its duty and was not liable for the local government's negligence.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 121, par. 4-405; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 121, par. 4-409

Cases cited: Sears v. Kois Brothers Equipment, Inc. (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 884, 890, 443 N.E.2d 214, 219; Chakos v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (1988), 169 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1026, 524 N.E.2d 615, 621

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

Headnotes

  1. ROLAND W. BURRIS,Attorney General (J AN SCHAFFERICK,Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
  2. HIGHWAYS-state could delegate its duty to maintain roadways to bcal governmental unit-claim dismissed. Pursuant to sections 4-405 and 4-409 of the Highway Code, which provide that the State has a duty to maintain its highways but may enter into a written contract with any other highway authority for the jurisdiction and maintenance of any highway or portion thereof, the State could delegate its duty to maintain its roadways to a local governmental unit, thereby escaping liability for the local unit’s negligent maintenance of such roadways, and therefore, the Claimant’s action against the State was dismissed.

ORDER

RAUCCI, J

This cause coming on to be heard on Respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court having considered the memoranda and oral arguments of the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the issue before the Court is whether the Respondent can delegate its [*181] duty to maintain State roadways to units of local government, and, consequently, suffer no liability if a unit of local government is negligent in its maintenance.

Illinois Revised Statutes 1989, ch. 121, par. 4-405 provides in pertinent part: “The Department shall maintain all highways in the State highway system either with its own forces or pursuant to an agreement or contract entered into pursuant to this Code.”

Paragraph 4-409 provides: “The Department may enter into a written contract with any other highway authority for the jurisdiction, maintenance O O of any highway or portion thereof .”

Sears v . Kois Brothers Equipment, Znc. (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 884,890,443 N.E.2d 214,219, and Chakos v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (1988), 169 Ill. App. 3d 1018,1026,5.24 N.E.2d 615,621, cited by Claimant, are not apposite to this case. Those cases hold that the Illinois Tollway Authority could be held liable for negligence even if it had contracted with others to perform maintenance or police duties. Statutory language similar to sections 4-405 and 4-409, however, does not exist.

We are not unmindful that since the 1959 enactment of these statutory provisions all of our decisions have upheld dismissal of claims similar to the instant one. In the absence of legislative disapproval of our interpretation, we are constrained to continue to adhere to it.

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this claim is dismissed and forever barred.

Official volume 44 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1992 – July 1, 1991–June 30, 1992)  ·  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.