{
  "id": 5348912,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erwin Klein, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Klein",
  "decision_date": "1974-05-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 59017",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 Ill. App. 3d 158"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill.2d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5394435
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/52/0371-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 5319,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15829899735467204
    },
    "sha256": "9c46f5370d26632b200016767c222c145176781cdc84dbaa76f6b6d1ab2c3017",
    "simhash": "1:1543aab5ed11219f",
    "word_count": 854
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:20.277928+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erwin Klein, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle in excess of the maximum weight permitted by law, in violation of section 15 \u2014 111 of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95%, \u00a7 15 \u2014 111.) The defendant was fined the sum of $10,270.00 plus costs.\nThe only issue presented on appeal is whether the statutory exemption set out in section 15 \u2014 111(e) of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95%, \u00a7 15 \u2014 111(e)) is applicable to the defendant.\nOn January 7, 1972, the defendant, Erwin Klein, was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle in excess of the maximum weight permitted by law, and in excess of the maximum width permitted, in violation of sections 15 \u2014 111 and 15 \u2014 102 of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code. Prior to trial the defendant made an offer of proof as an affirmative defense to the overweight charge that at the time of his arrest he was transporting equipment needed for an emergency repair of a public service facility and, therefore, came under the statutory exemption provided by section 15 \u2014 111(e) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95%, \u00a7 15 \u2014 111(e)). More specifically, the defendant requested an opportunity to demonstrate the vehicle in question, a lowboy, upon which was loaded a Northwest 80D backhoe, was being transported in order to repair certain trench cave-ins which had occurred during the course of the performance of a contract between the defendant\u2019s employer and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. The trial judge rejected the defendant\u2019s offer of proof on the ground the statutory exemption applied only to vehicles operated by a public utility when transporting equipment for the emergency repair of \u201cexisting\u201d public works. Following the trial judge\u2019s ruling the defendant waived a jury trial and proceeded to trial before the court. The defendant was found guilty of both the overwidth and overweight charges and was fined $10,270.00 plus costs on the overweight charge. The defendant does not contest the finding as to the overwidth charge.\nThe defendant contends the court erred in ruling the statutory exemption applies only where repair machinery is being transported to an \u201cexisting\u201d public works. In support of his contention, the defendant relies on section 15 \u2014 111(e) of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code, which states:\n\u201cWeight limitations shall not apply to vehicles (including loads) operated by a public utility when transporting equipment required for emergency repair of public service facilities or properties.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 95%, \u00a7 15 \u2014 111(e).)\nDefendant maintains the word \u201cexisting\u201d does not appear in the statute and, therefore, cannot be considered a condition precedent to the applicability of the exemption set out in section 15 \u2014 111(e).\nWe believe the statutory exemption prescribed in section 15\u2014 111(e) of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code is applicable to the defendant in the instant case. No restrictive language limiting the applicability of the exemption to facilities already in existence appears in the statute. It is well settled, that in the absence of an expressed legislative intention to the contrary, courts will assume that statutory words were intended to convey their ordinary and popularly understood meanings. (People v. Blair (1972), 52 Ill.2d 371.) An examination of the statute in question clearly indicates the intent of the legislature was to permit public utilities to meet their responsibilities and respond immediately to unanticipated emergencies for the protection of the public. We construe the statute to include those situations where emergency repair of a public service facility then under construction is necessary. Considering the purpose of the statutory exemption, we find no difference between an emergency arising in connection with an existing facility and an emergency which arises during the construction of such a facility.\nA review of the record in the case at bar reveals no disagreement between the parties that the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago in constructing and operating a sanitary storm sewer is a public utility within the meaning of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code. Further, there is no doubt that the sudden and unexpected cave-ins of the trenches constituted an emergency situation requiring immediate repair in order to prevent serious harm to the men worldng at the job site and to prevent interference with the completion of the public service facility. We conclude, therefore, section 15 \u2014 111(e) of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code was applicable to the defendant at the time of his arrest.\nFor the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is reversed.\nReversed.\nBURMAN and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O\u2019Brien and Trittipo, Ltd., of Chicago (Donald V. O\u2019Brien and Peter B. Carey, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis, Mary Ellen Dienes, and John B. Adams, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erwin Klein, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 59017;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nMay 22, 1974.\nO\u2019Brien and Trittipo, Ltd., of Chicago (Donald V. O\u2019Brien and Peter B. Carey, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis, Mary Ellen Dienes, and John B. Adams, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 180,
  "last_page_order": 182
}