Waterstreet v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Waterstreet v. State

9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 111, 1935 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 65

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedDecember 10, 1935

DocketNo. 2740

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 111 (Waterstreet v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waterstreet v. State, 9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 111, 1935 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 65 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Yantis

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant herein seeks an award of Twenty Six and 55/100 Dollars ($26.55) for damages to claimant’s automobile on August 28, 1935 by reason, as he alleges, of being struck by a State highway maintenance truck No. 361 at Elburn, Illinois, driven by one Charles Nelson.

The Attorney General has filed a motion on behalf of respondent to dismiss the claim on the ground that the State cannot be held to respond for the torts or negligent acts of its employees. If the facts are as represented in the complaint the employee in question should be compelled to pay for the damages caused, but this court has not jurisdiction to make such an order, and neither can an order be properly entered against the State as the rule of respondeat superior does not apply thereto. Similiarly as stated in Minear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549 and in Bucholz, Admrx. vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241.

"In the construction and maintenance of its roads the State acts in a governmental capacity and in the exercise thereof does not become liable for the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of its officers or agents in the absence of a statute creating such liability.”

The motion of the Attorney General is allowed and the claim is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Yantis

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant herein seeks an award of Twenty Six and 55/100 Dollars ($26.55) for damages to claimant’s automobile on August 28, 1935 by reason, as he alleges, of being struck by a State highway maintenance truck No. 361 at Elburn, Illinois, driven by one Charles Nelson.

The Attorney General has filed a motion on behalf of respondent to dismiss the claim on the ground that the State cannot be held to respond for the torts or negligent acts of its employees. If the facts are as represented in the complaint the employee in question should be compelled to pay for the damages caused, but this court has not jurisdiction to make such an order, and neither can an order be properly entered against the State as the rule of respondeat superior does not apply thereto. Similiarly as stated in Minear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549 and in Bucholz, Admrx. vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241.

"In the construction and maintenance of its roads the State acts in a governmental capacity and in the exercise thereof does not become liable for the malfeasance, misfeasance or negligence of its officers or agents in the absence of a statute creating such liability.”

The motion of the Attorney General is allowed and the claim is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 111, 1935 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterstreet-v-state-ilclaimsct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack