{
  "id": 5320349,
  "name": "Robert Hendricks, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hendricks v. State",
  "decision_date": "1979-01-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-CC-1201",
  "first_page": "672",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 672"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 Ala. 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3667397
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "174"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/244/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 NE2d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 2d 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2598199
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/57/0090-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15787889564217836
    },
    "sha256": "3745cb331f98aa46575cfe1af365b00827cbf7463814660f9f6a6ed03e2f9041",
    "simhash": "1:44745944d96688e1",
    "word_count": 505
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:10.322906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Hendricks, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Polos, C.J.\nClaimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.\nClaimant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that while an inmate at the Pontiac Penitentiary, he was placed in segregation and placed his personal property in the control of the State of Illinois. When he returned from segregation certain items of his property were damaged, and others were missing.\nThis Court held in Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate\u2019s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.\nWhile bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:\n\u201cA constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.\u201d 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.\nIn Chesterfield, the Court quotes from Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So2d. 172, at 174, as follows;\n\u201cAn actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.\u201d\nThe loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.\nAt the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant\u2019s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.\nThe presumption that the State was negligent in caring for Claimant\u2019s property therefore stands unrebutted.\nClaimant has established that the value of the property lost by the State was $165.00.\nIt is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $165.00.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Polos, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 77-CC-1201\nRobert Hendricks, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed January 10, 1979."
  },
  "file_name": "0672-01",
  "first_page_order": 786,
  "last_page_order": 788
}