In re Application of FRANCES WALKER
Case summary
Claimant sought compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Act for injuries from a traffic accident. The court dismissed the claim because no violent crime occurred and claimant failed to exhaust other remedies including insurance and worker's compensation.
Statutes cited: 740 ILCS 45/1; 740 ILCS 45/10.1(g)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Crime Victim’s Compensation Act - Claimant’s complaint pursuant to the Crime Victim’s Compensation Act seeking damages for injuries sustained as a result of a traffic accident was dismissed for failure to evidence the existence of a violent crime and for failure to exhaust other remedies.
- Crime Victim’s Compensation Act - Existence of Violent Crime - In order for a Claimant to be eligible for compensation under the Crime Victim Compensation Act, there must be evidence of the occurrence of a violent crime as specifically set forth under §2(c) of the Act.
- Crime Victim’s Compensation Act - Exhaustion of Remedies - Pursuant to the Crime Victims Compensation Act, an applicant must demonstrate exhaustion of all other reasonably available remedies including insurance and Worker’s Compensation.
ORDER
JANN, J. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on after hearing before the assigned Commissioner.
This claim arises out of an incident that occurred on December 13, 2002. The Claimant, Frances Walker, seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 740 ILCS 45/1, et seq., (2000).
A hearing was heard by a Commissioner of the Court on May 15, 2006.
The transcript indicates: 1. That on December 13, 2002, the Claimant was injured as a result of a traffic accident. The incident occurred at 4092 North Broadway, Chicago, Illinois. Police investigation revealed that the offending vehicle struck the vehicle in which the Claimant was a passenger. The driver of the offending vehicle fled the scene, but was later apprehended. 2. That in order for a Claimant to be eligible for compensation under the Act, there must be evidence that one of the violent crimes specifically set forth under §2(c ) of the Act occurred. 3. At the hearing before the Commissioner, the Claimant testified when she spoke to the offender she smelled a strong odor of alcohol. The Court finds her testimony credible.
When the offender left the scene of the accident she was not apprehended until later, and filed her own police report. The offender was insured. 4. That “crime of violence” as specified in §2(c ) of the Act does include driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, but the incident was not a crime of violence per Claimant’s testimony. 5. Claimant’s testimony and application with exhibits indicate she was a passenger in a Chicago Transit Authority vehicle, employed by CTA, and in the course of her employment when the collision occurred. 6. Claimant testified that she had received the name and address of the offending driver and her insurance company. Claimant obtained counsel and began proceedings against the other driver, but somehow failed to file suit within the limitations period.
[*449] Pursuant to Crime Victims Compensation Act 740 ILCS 45/10.1(g), an applicant must demonstrate exhaustion of all other reasonably available remedies including insurance and Worker’s Compensation.
Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that Claimant has failed to meet a required condition precedent to compensation as no violent crime occurred, and it appears Claimant failed to exhaust remedies against a known party and pursue a presumably available Worker’s Compensation claim. This claim is hereby dismissed with prejudice.