SCOTT WEBB, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $100,000 for injuries from a car collision with a state employee. The court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the individual employee and for failure to file a timely notice of intent or complaint within one year as required by statute.
Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/8(a); 705 ILCS 505/22-1; 735 ILCS 5/2-619; 74 Ill.Admin.Code §790.50(b)(l)
Cases cited: Gedaminsas v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 429 (2002); O'Connor v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 49 Ill.Ct.Cl. 153 (1996); Cummings v. State, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 357 (1991); Hines v. State, 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1 (1998); Slepcevich v State, 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 197 (1989)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Jurisdiction-Respondeat superior- The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over all claims against the State in cases founded upon any law of the State of Illinois. Through the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Court may hear claims against a state employee alleged to have violated a duty while acting in the scope of his employment, but the claim is really against the State. The Complaint against the employee in his capacity as an agent and/or employee of the State must be dismissed.
- Practice and procedure-Statute of limitations-Personal injury- A claimant seeking recovery for personal injury must file a notice of intent to sue within one year of the date of accrual of the alleged injury. Claimant alleges his injuries occurred in 2008 and he filed his Complaint in 2010. Claimant did not file either a notice of intent to sue or a complaint within one year of his injury, therefore his Complaint must be dismissed.
ORDER
Burns, J.
This case comes before the Court on the Respondent's motion to dismiss
under Section 2-619(a)(1) and (5) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS
5/2-619.
Respondent filed its motion on September 20, 2010. Claimant did not file
a response.
The Court having reviewed the matter and being fully advised in the
premises:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's motion to dismiss is
GRANTED for the following reasons: the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
individuals, and the Claimant did not timely file either his notice or his claim.
On August 6, 2008, the Claimant allegedly was severely injured when the
vehicle in which he was driving collided with another vehicle driven by Ivan Scott [*145]
Maxwell, an employee of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), on Illinois
State Route 154 near Sesser, Franklin County, Illinois.
On August 6, 2010, the
Claimant filed a two-count complaint against Maxwell and IDOC alleging negligence.
Claimant seeks $100,000 in damages.
Pursuant to the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"), the Court has jurisdiction
over all claims against the State in cases founded upon any law of the State of
Illinois.
See 705 ILCS 505/8(a).
The Court has held that its jurisdiction under the
Act only extends to the State and its agencies.
Gedaminsas v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 429
(2002).
The Court may, via the doctrine of respondeat superior, hear cases against a
state employee alleged to have violated a duty while acting within the scope of his
or her employment, but the individual employee then is only a nominal party and
the claim is really against the State.
O'Connor v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 49
Ill.Ct.Cl. 153 (1996).
Here, the Complaint alleges that Maxwell was operating a
vehicle within the scope of his employment by the State (see Complaint, paragraph
2).
As a result, the State is the proper respondent and Count I of the Complaint,
against Ivan Scott Maxwell in his capacity as an agent and/or employee of the State,
must be dismissed.
Turning to Count II, against the State, the Court notes that Section 22-1 of the
Act requires any claimant seeking recovery for personal injury to file a notice of
intent to sue within one year of the date of accrual of the alleged injury.
See 705
ILCS 505/22-1.
In addition, pursuant to 74 Ill.Admin.Code §790.50(b)(l), a copy of
said Notice of Intent shall be attached to the Complaint.
Here, the Claimant neither
filed a notice of intent to sue nor attached any Notice to his Complaint.
[*146] The statutory notice requirement of Section 22-1 is a condition precedent to
filing a complaint in this Court and is jurisdictional.
Cummings v. State, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl.
357 (1991).
Strict compliance is required.
Hines v. State, 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1 (1998);
Slepcevich v State, 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 197 (1989).
The Claimant alleges his injuries occurred
on August 6, 2008.
Claimant filed his complaint on August 6, 2010.
Since the
Claimant did not file either notice of intent to sue, or the complaint itself1, within
one year of the date of accrual of the injury, as required by Section 22-1, Claimant's
Complaint must be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.
The Claimant's complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
1 Section 22-1 allows a claimant to bypass the notice requirement if he or she files is or her claim within one year of its accrual.
See 705 ILCS 505/22-1.