{
  "id": 2821272,
  "name": "Edgar G. Merwin and Carrie Merwin, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Merwin v. State",
  "decision_date": "1941-03-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 3049",
  "first_page": "459",
  "last_page": "461",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ill. Ct. Cl. 459"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "354 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5290826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/354/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ill. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4727760
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/259/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 Ill. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3214381
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/182/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2721035
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/95/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 2939,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08478293522131986
    },
    "sha256": "0214412ce0bf3f726643fdc1f755ecdd8102f61241bedc66fa7fe8651e6f061c",
    "simhash": "1:3813653334263682",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:50.589975+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edgar G. Merwin and Carrie Merwin, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Linscott\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis case is before the court on a motion to dismiss the complaint which consisted of two counts.\nThe first count alleges that Edgar G~. Merwin was the owner of a Packard automobile, which he was driving in a .northerly direction over State Highway No. 3, also known as United States Highway No. 67, between Jerseyville and Carrollton, Illinois, and that his wife, Carrie Merwin, was riding as a passenger with him; that they were in the exercise of due care and caution for their own safety and that of the property of the claimant, Edgar G-. Merwin; that at the time the State owned and operated an automobile, and was operating the same by its servants; that as the claimants were traveling on the highway, without any warning, the servant of the State backed his car rapidly upon the highway at such time and in such a manner that the claimants could not avoid running into him, and both claimants suffered severe injuries.\nCount I alleged damages in the sum of $5,000.00 and Count II alleged damages in the sum of $1,000.00.\nA motion to dismiss was made by the Attorney G-eneral. We will consider that motion.\nThe facts set forth in the complaint are sufficient to show negligence on behalf of the servant of the State, a resulting injury and damages, and to show that the agent of the State was an employee of the Highway Department and that the State was engaged in a work that comes fairly within its governmental powers.\nMany times this court has held that the State, in the construction and maintenance of its hard-surfaced highways, is engaged in a governmental function.\nChumbler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 136;\nHighland vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 384;\nBucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241;\nWilson vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 72;\nWetherholt vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 100.\nAlso that in the exercise of such governmental functions it is not liable for the negligence of its servants or agents, in the absence of a statute making it so liable.\nBraun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104;\nChumbler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138;\nBucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241;\nBaumgart vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 220;\nChildress vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 223;\nRyan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 361;\nKramer vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 31;\nJohnson vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 67;\nWilson vs. State 8 C. C. R. 72.\nSuch decisions of this court are in harmony with repeated decisions of our Supreme Court.\nHollenbeck vs. County of Winnebago, 95 Ill. 148;\nCity of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135;\nMinear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549;\nGebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234.\nWe must, therefore, sustain the motion to dismiss made by the Attorney General and deny an award.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Linscott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick L. Habbegger, for claimant.",
      "George F. Barrett, Attorney General; Glenn A. Trevor, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 3049\nEdgar G. Merwin and Carrie Merwin, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 11, 1941.\nFrederick L. Habbegger, for claimant.\nGeorge F. Barrett, Attorney General; Glenn A. Trevor, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0459-01",
  "first_page_order": 479,
  "last_page_order": 481
}