JOHN M. HOGAN, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged that a pothole on Interstate 90 caused him to lose control of his motorcycle and sustain injuries. The court denied the claim because the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State breached its duty to maintain the highway or that any breach proximately caused the accident.
Cases cited: Robertson v. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 862; Baren v. State (1974), 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 162; Roach v. State (1986), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
SMITH & M UNSON , for Claimant.
R OLAND W. BURRIS,Attorney General (J O H N R. BUCKLEY, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
HIGI-lWAYs-burdenis on Claimant to prove State’s breach of duty to maintain highways. Although the State has a duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes for which they are intended and to exercise reasonable care in their maintenance and repair, the Claimant must prove that the State breached its duty by knowingly allowing a dangerous condition to exist, and that the breach was a proximate cause of the Claimant’s injuries.
SAME-motorcych? accident-failure to prove state’s negligenceclaim denied. Where the Claimant produced no evidence, other than his own testimony, that a pothole in the roadway caused him to lose control of his motorcycle and sustain injuries, and a State trooper testified that the Claimant told him after the accident that he was used to a smaller motorcycle and lost control of the one he was riding, the Claimant failed to meet his burden of proving the State’s negligence and his claim was denied.
OPINION
PATCHETT,
J.
This claim arises out of a motorcycle accident which occurred on August 1, 1982, at or near the intersection of Elmhurst Road on eastbound Interstate 90. Claimant lost control of his motorcycle and he sustained [*59] serious injuries. There were no witnesses to the accident, except the Claimant.
The claim was filed alleging that the accident was due to a pothole in the road, which is maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation. A trial was held before the commissioner of this Court. Claimant produced no evidence or witnesses other than himself that a pothole caused the accident, or even that an unsafe condition existed at the time of the occurrence. Evidence did come in that Claimant stated to the trooper who investigated the accident that he was used to riding a smaller motorcycle and had lost control of the one he was riding at the time of the accident.
It is clearly established law that the State does have a duty to maintain the highways in a reasonably 1
I
safe condition for the purposes for which they are intended. (Robertson 23. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. C1. 862.) The State has a duty to persons using streets and roads
i to exercise reasonable care in their maintenance and I repair. (Baren 2). State (1974), 30 Ill. Ct. C1. 162.) The Claimant, however, retains the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State breached its duty by allowing a dangerous and hazardous condition to exist even though it knew of the existence of the condition. Further, the Claimant has the burden of proof to prove that the breach of duty was a proximate cause of Claimant's injuries and damages. (Roach 0. State (1986), 38 Ill. Ct. C1. 171.) Claimant has simply failed to meet that burden of proof, and therefore, we deny this claim.
t[*60]