{
  "id": 5382134,
  "name": "J. P. MILLER ARTESIAN WELL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "J. P. Miller Artesian Well Co. v. County of Cook",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 62040",
  "first_page": "1020",
  "last_page": "1022",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 3d 1020"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2554366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/84/0221-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 3901,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.876,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.683163189350734e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40657775800828544
    },
    "sha256": "0dfbe907f427977f067cf1e0512a390c3a27c77586255dcf1bc4acbcdda3e8c7",
    "simhash": "1:b0337508e573b4f0",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:11.874495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. P. MILLER ARTESIAN WELL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff brought this action at law against Cook County, the sheriff of Cook County, and two deputy sheriffs. The circuit court of Cook County struck plaintiff\u2019s complaint as to the sheriff, Richard Elrod, and dismissed the cause as to Elrod. Plaintiff appeals.\nWe affirm.\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint alleges the following pertinent facts. On the evening of January 7,1974, plaintiff was in the process of drilling a water well for the Village of Palatine on the Village\u2019s property. Defendant William Collins, a uniformed and armed deputy sheriff, appeared at the drilling site and told plaintiff\u2019s workers that his office had received a number of complaints about the noise emanating from the site, and that the drilling would have to stop. Plaintiff\u2019s workers then told Deputy Collins that if they stopped drilling, their tools would get stuck in the hole and that it would be expensive to repair the damage. Collins left. He returned several hours later, in the early morning hours of January 8, and repeated his request for the drilling to stop because of the noise. Plaintiff\u2019s workers again explained that if they were to stop drilling, the damages could amount to *100,000 or more. The deputy then said that he \u201chad orders from his boss to shut down the drilling operation.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s employees stopped drilling and allegedly sustained damages in the amount of *250,000. The complaint alleged that Deputy Richard Lowphorf was Collins\u2019 supervisor, and plaintiff demanded judgment against Deputy Sheriffs Collins and Lowphorf, Sheriff Elrod, and Cook County. The only basis for recovery stated in the complaint is that the defendants breached their duties to refrain from interfering with plaintiff\u2019s work, and that plaintiff\u2019s damages were the proximate result of that interference. There are no allegations that Sheriff Elrod personally directed, participated in or was aware of any of the events at the drilling site.\nPlaintiff\u2019s position on appeal is that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint as to Sheriff Elrod because Elrod is statutorily liable for the neglect and omissions of his deputy sheriffs. Defendant Elrod argues that the complaint fails to state a cause of action as to him.\nThe Sheriff\u2019s liability is premised upon the following statute:\n\u201cThe sheriff shall be liable for any neglect or omission of the duties of his office, when occasioned by a deputy, in the same manner as for his own personal neglect or omission.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 125, par. 13.)\nTo state a cause of action against a sheriff under this statute, a complaint must allege that the damage resulted from the neglect or omissions of a deputy. If a complaint alleges the deputy\u2019s intentional or wanton misconduct, this statute does not impose liability upon the sheriff. De Correvant v. Lohman (1967), 84 Ill. App. 2d 221.\nThe complaint at bar does not allege any facts which show that either of the two deputy sheriffs acted negligently. We hold, therefore, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action as to Richard Elrod, sheriff of Cook County.\nPlaintiff\u2019s argument that the deputy sheriffs acted negligently in failing to ascertain their authority are made for the first time on appeal and will not be considered.\nThe order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing the complaint as to defendant Elrod is affirmed.\nOrder affirmed.\nMEJDA, P. J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel A. Gallagher, Ralph O. Butz, and Daniel Francis Gallagher, all of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Sheldon Gardner and Michael A. Tyrrell, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. P. MILLER ARTESIAN WELL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 62040\nOpinion filed May 6, 1976.\nRehearing denied August 12, 1976.\nDaniel A. Gallagher, Ralph O. Butz, and Daniel Francis Gallagher, all of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Sheldon Gardner and Michael A. Tyrrell, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "1020-01",
  "first_page_order": 1048,
  "last_page_order": 1050
}