{ "id": 2785588, "name": "Donald Emm and John Vanda, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Emm v. State", "decision_date": "1965-06-25", "docket_number": "No. 4976", "first_page": "213", "last_page": "219", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 213" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "id": 8793, "name": "Illinois Court of Claims" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "32 Ill. App. 2d 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5232650 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/32/0162-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 493, "char_count": 9120, "ocr_confidence": 0.728, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.401602343302933e-07, "percentile": 0.8774832046192654 }, "sha256": "b998cb6cd6e97bc75d2607c999155d535b36da75356bb0e0807241e678289aae", "simhash": "1:55a43dbe900a46f7", "word_count": 1555 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:55.670219+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Donald Emm and John Vanda, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Dove, J.\nClaimants, Donald Emm and John Vanda, filed their complaint in this Court on April 27, 1961. They seek to recover for damages to Emm\u2019s car as well as compensation for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained on April 30, 1960, while driving on State Route No. 17, approximately 17 miles west of Kankakee, Illinois. The amount of damages claimed by Claimant Emm is $3,500.00, and that by Claimant Vanda is $2,500.00.\nFrom the evidence it appears that on April 30, 1960 at 11:00 P.M., claimants collided with a bridge, which was being constructed on Route No. 17, approximately 17 miles west of Kankakee, Illinois. Donald Emm was the owner and driver of the 1955 Pontiac Sedan, and John Vanda was a passenger riding in the right front seat at the time of the accident.\nRoute No. 17 west of Kankakee was under construction at the time. Detour signs were posted. Numerous signs were posted for the direction and control of westbound traffic from Washington Street in Kankakee to 17 miles west of Kankakee were in place on the date of the accident. All of the signs faced east, were reflectorized, and had their messages in black on yellow backgrounds. Signs at the west edge of Kankakee at Washington Street indicated that the road was closed to all except local traffic, and the Superintendent of Highways. Emm testified that he had his lights on bright; that he saw signs \u201c17 Closed West Detour\u201d; another, as he approached Lehigh Road, reading \u201cTo Illinois 17 Detour 4 Miles\u201d; another, as he approached Warner Bridge Road 10 miles west of Kankakee, which read \u201c17 Closed West Detour Use 45-52 to 115.\u201d These signs were all 36\" X 36\" in size. Emm also testified that he saw another sign at the Warner Bridge Road saying \u201cBarricade Ahead,\u201d and beyond that sign another sign saying \u201cBridge Out,\u201d and just beyond that sign another sign saying \u201cRoad Closed.\u201d All these signs were 36\" X 36\" reflectorized. At the next road, Goodrich Road, further travel westward on Route No. 17 was blocked by a permanent barricade across the middle of the road, which was equipped with flashing warning fights and a sign \u201cBarricade Ahead.\u201d He did not turn off at any of the posted detour signs at Washington Street, Wall Street, Lehigh Road, Warner Bridge Road or Goodrich Road detours.\nOf the three bridges, which were out in the construction area, the first was west of the Goodrich Road barricade, and was protected by a permanent barricade with flashing warning fights and a 24\" X 24\" reflectorized sign on the shoulder which read \u201cBarricade Ahead.\u201d Approximately 400 feet further there was a \u201csaw-horse\u201d in the middle of the road upon which hung a 36\" X 36\" reflectorized sign reading \u201cBridge Out,\u201d and a run-around or by-pass around the bridge, which claimants followed.\nAs they proceeded along the \u201crough road\u201d at about 40 to 45 miles per hour, they saw another 24\" X 24\" reflectorized sign on the shoulder, which read \u201cBarricade Ahead,\u201d and 400 feet further down the road a barricade across the road with a 36\" X 36\" reflectorized sign on it reading \u201cBridge Out\u201d and indicating another by-pass around the bridge. Claimants proceeded on this by-pass, and continued west on Route No. 17.\nApproximately two miles further, the road became \u201cdefinitely bumpy and with loose gravel,\u201d and they saw another 24\" X 24\" reflectorized sign reading \u201cBarricade Ahead.\u201d Claimants saw this, and \u201cbegan to slow down, because the road was so bad at this point, and he figured there were more detours ahead,\u201d and they proceeded west for about 400 feet at about 40 to 45 miles per hour, where they hit a \u201csaw-horse\u201d barricade, which was knocked down, and lying in the road. To this barricade was attached a 24\" X 24\" reflectorized sign reading \u201cBridge Out.\u201d Claimants\u2019 right front tire struck the \u201csaw-horse\u201d barricade, and \u201cthey immediately ran into building materials and debris, which were piled on the pavement.\u201d Emm applied the brakes, and the car slid forward into a 2% foot high concrete abutment which was the floor of the bridge. The resulting impact totally wrecked the car and caused the injuries complained of.\nEmm sustained cracked ribs, contusion above his right eye, lacerations to his left elbow, and was \u201cvery badly shaken up.\u201d His doctor bill was $12.00 that evening, plus a later doctor and hospital bill of $48.00, and he lost twelve working days.\nVanda\u2019s injuries occurred as he was thrown into the windshield at the time of impact. He suffered facial lacerations, which required sixteen stitches, and a chipped tooth. He was never admitted to a hospital. His doctor bill was $20.00, and he lost three weeks of work; He claims a vision loss in his left eye from 20/20 to 15/20, and has 20/20 vision in his right eye.\nTwo State Highway Engineers testified for respondent, as did the State Trooper who worked the accident. The engineers testified as to the various road signs and construction warnings. The State Trooper verified that all warning signs were up after the accident, except for the knocked-down \u201csaw-horse\u201d east of the third bridge, which claimants testified they struck.\nClaimant Emm testified further that they had each had six or eight small beers during the day, and had eaten supper about 10:15 P.M. in Kankakee, about 45 minutes prior to the accident. In Kankakee they had asked directions from a gas station attendant, as they were not familiar with the roads in the area, and had 60 miles to go to their home. Then, while traveling on Route No. 17 prior to the accident, both Claimants had discussed the fact that they were in a construction area, and questioned whether they had been given correct directions.\nIt is undisputed that in the 10.2 miles prior to the construction zone there were nine warning signs indicating that the road was closed, and also indicating an alternate route. Prior to entering the actual construction zone, there were 5 roads on which to turn and take an alternate route, and thus avoid the construction zone.\nThe construction zone itself began behind a permanent-type barricade, which extended across the middle of Route No. 17, and was illuminated by flashing warning lights. Claimants went around the barricade, and traveled approximately 2.8 miles in the construction area, by-passing two \u201cBridge Out\u201d and warning signs before reaching the scene of the accident at the third bridge.\nThe evidence is ample that both the driver of the car, Donald Emm, and his passenger, John Vanda, were aware of the prohibition against entering the construction zone prior to the time of their entry, and discussed the fact that the road was closed to traffic; that there were warning signs all along the road; and that they were definitely going the wrong way.\nThe contention of claimants is that the State of Illinois was negligent in maintaining this particular portion of Route No. 17, and they allege their freedom from contributory negligence. The evidence fails to establish that claimants were in the exercise of due care. The record and claimants\u2019 own testimony prove that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of claimants, and that there was no negligence on the part of respondent.\nWe have previously held that the burden of proof is upon a claimant to show freedom from contributory negligence, and, where he fails to meet such burden, his claim will be denied. (Paul I. Howell, as Administrator of the Estate of Luella Howell, Deceased, vs. State of Illinois, 23 C.C.R. 141 at 145). A party has no right to knowingly expose himself to danger, and then to recover damages for an injury which he might have avoided by the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care. (Withey vs. Ill. Power Co., 1961, 32 Ill. App. 2d 162). Each of the claimants saw, and knew of the existence of the signs. They also knew of the danger of traveling on a closed road with bridges out and that they were going the wrong way. Yet they ignored all of the warnings, and at 11:00 P.M., after spending a day, which included drinking some six to eight beers apiece, they sped down an unfamiliar road, which was under construction, all the while discussing but disregarding numerous signs stating \u201c17 Closed West Detour,\u201d \u201cRoad Closed,\u201d \u201cBarricade Ahead,\u201d and \u201cBridge Out.\u201d\nThe State of Illinois is not an insurer against all accidents upon its highways, but, as we have previously held, it is required only to keep them in a reasonably safe condition for the purpose to which the portion in question is devoted, and the placing of adequate signs warning of the conditions to be met fulfills the obligation of the State to the users of the highway. (Grant, Et Al, vs. State of Illinois, 21 C.C.R 563).\nIt is evident that claimants have failed to prove their asserted causes of action by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.\nAwards to claimants, Donald Emm and John Vanda, are hereby denied.", "type": "majority", "author": "Dove, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas R. Flood, Attorney for Claimants.", "William G. Clark, Attorney General; Edward G. Finnegan and Edward A. Warman, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 4976\nDonald Emm and John Vanda, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed June 25, 1965.\nThomas R. Flood, Attorney for Claimants.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General; Edward G. Finnegan and Edward A. Warman, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent." }, "file_name": "0213-01", "first_page_order": 249, "last_page_order": 255 }