{
  "id": 2815769,
  "name": "Harriet S. Taylor and Frank M. Taylor, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. State",
  "decision_date": "1941-03-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 2767",
  "first_page": "463",
  "last_page": "464",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ill. Ct. Cl. 463"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5309952
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Wheaton 720",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wheat.",
      "case_ids": [
        1421291
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/22/0720-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ill. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4727760
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/259/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2721035
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/95/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 2566,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0847120816696263
    },
    "sha256": "536814180da42e45fc026a68c6fac0c332e995c5928672b01b0b20dcbdff7bd6",
    "simhash": "1:5863f63b162e0ae0",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:50.589975+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harriet S. Taylor and Frank M. Taylor, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Linscott\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this complaint it is charged that Harriet S. Taylor and Prank M. Taylor were the owners of eight acres of wheat and five rows of corn forty-eight rods long which were destroyed by the employees of the Highway Department of the State of Illinois in the burning of grass and weeds along the highway known as U. \u00a13. 36; that the wheat loss was $147.20 and the corn loss was $9.00.\nThe Attorney General made a motion to dismiss because the State was engaged in a governmental function and is, therefore, not liable for the negligence of its employees.\nWe must assume that the facts stated in the complaint are true. The motion raises only an issue of law.\nThe court has uniformly held that the maintenance by the State of its State bond issue routes is a governmental function, and has also held in numerous cases that the State is not liable for the negligence of its servants or agents in the performance of governmental functions.\nHinchcliff vs. State, 2 C. C. R. 159;\nDerby vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 145;\nHollenback Admrx. vs. Winnebago County, 95 Ill. 148;\nMinear vs. State Board of Agr., 259 Ill. 549; 25 R. C. L., p. 407, Sec. 43;\nLoges vs. State, No. 1946; Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934.\nIt is a rule of almost universal application that no government is liable for the negligence or misfeasance of its officers and agents, in the absence of a statute making it liable.\nGibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wal. 269;\nU. S. vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheaton 720; .\nJorgensen vs. State, 2 C. C. R. 134;\nReliable Coal Mining Co. vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 56;\nCrawford vs. State, No. 2360, Opinion filed Dec. 11, 1934.\nThe General Assembly has never enacted a law making the State liable for damages caused by the negligent construction or maintenance of a public road, and this court has no power to make an award for such damages, in the absence of such a statute.\nChumbler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138;\nBucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 243.\nWhere a poor farm was owned by a county and the servant of the county was burning brush thereon and through his negligence a fire spread to an adjoining farm and caused damages thereto, the county was held not liable.\nSymonds vs. Clay County, 71 Ill. 355.\nThe motion of the Attorney General will, therefore, be sustained and the cause dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Linscott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles R. Taylor, for claimants.",
      "George F. Barrett, Attorney General; John Kasserman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2767\nHarriet S. Taylor and Frank M. Taylor, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 11, 1941.\nCharles R. Taylor, for claimants.\nGeorge F. Barrett, Attorney General; John Kasserman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0463-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 484
}