{
  "id": 5317130,
  "name": "Royal Globe Insurance and Dennis and Sarah Adams, Claimants, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Royal Globe Insurance v. State",
  "decision_date": "1982-03-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 78-CC-1090",
  "first_page": "161",
  "last_page": "164",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 161"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 5998,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.882,
    "sha256": "966a60c9892dfd86374258ebd7d230643e97e44f49bdc7e6095768b275f742d4",
    "simhash": "1:fee9d4f6b8dc9b10",
    "word_count": 966
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:43.791876+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Royal Globe Insurance and Dennis and Sarah Adams, Claimants, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Roe, C.J.\nThis action is brought by Claimants, Royal Globe Insurance Company, Dennis Adams and Sarah Adams, against Respondent, State of Illinois, for damages to property sustained by Claimants. This case sounds in tort and is brought pursuant to section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.8(d)), and section 1 of \u201cAn Act concerning damages caused by escaped inmates of . . . institutions over which the State has control\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 23, par. 4041).\nClaimants allege that their property was damaged by misconduct of inhabitants of \u201chalf-way house\u201d, which is a correctional facility operated by the Respondent\u2019s Department of Corrections in Carbondale, Illinois. It was alleged that the losses occurred on March 12, 1978, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. when persons subject to the control of the Illinois Department of Corrections entered the home of Dennis Adams and Sarah Adams gnd destroyed the contents thereof, said damages amounting to $3,963.38.\nClaimant is the insurer for Dennis Adams and Sarah Adams, who are homeowners in the Carbondale area. Claimant is subrogated to the rights of their insured against the parties responsible for the theft and destruction of the contents in the Adams\u2019 home.\nClaimant has taken the position that the State of Illinois is liable for the acts of the inhabitants of \u201chalfway house\u201d in Carbondale under the theory that the duty owed by the State to control miscreants who are in the custody of the State is a non-delegable duty and that the State\u2019s responsibility is set forth in section 1 of \u201cAn Act concerning damages caused by escaped inmates of . . . institutions over which the State has control.\u201d The statute reads in part as follows:\nWhenever a claim is filed with the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, the Department of Children and Family Services or the Department of Corrections for damages resulting from personal injuries or damages to property, or both, or for damages resulting in property being stolen, heretofore or hereafter caused by an inmate who has escaped from a charitable, penal, reformatory or other institution over which the State of Illinois has control while he was at liberty after his escape, \u201d (emphasis supplied).\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 23, par. 4041.\nRespondent argues that the above statute requires, in order for Respondents to bear the liability for loss or damage, that the miscreants have \u201cescaped\u201d and have caused the damage while \u201cat liberty after (their) escape.\u201d Respondent argues that in the case at bar there is no evidence that \u201canyone escaped from anywhere.\u201d We do not accept this argument.\nIt is acknowledged that the persons responsible for this damage were inhabitants of a \u201chalf-way house\u201d operated under contract by Hillhouse, Inc., with the Illinois Department of Corrections. We do not believe that the liability intended to be placed upon Respondent by the Illinois legislature pursuant to the above-quoted section can be escaped by delegating the responsibility to operate institutions of the Illinois Department of Corrections to \u201cindependent contractors\u201d such as Hill-house, Inc. Furthermore, we cannot accept the argument of Respondent that inhabitants of institutions controlled by the Illinois Department of Corrections should not be said to have \u201cescaped\u201d or are \u201cat liberty after escape\u201d within the meaning of the above statute when such inhabitants engage in the commission of serious crimes such as the invasion and destruction of the home of Dennis Adams and Sarah Adams. Clearly, though these inmates were granted certain unrestricted liberties as residents of a half-way house, it should not be contemplated that they were within the bounds of their legitimate freedoms while perpetrating the acts resulting in the damage to Claimant\u2019s insured.\nRespondent argues that the Court has held, under the Parental Responsibility Law (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 70, par. 52) that the Department of Corrections could not be held liable under the reasoning of Vallery v. State of Illinois, 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 187. In the Vallery case, supra, it appeared that Claimant\u2019s property was damaged by a ward of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, who was a foster child in Claimant\u2019s home. The child had been placed in Claimant\u2019s home by order of the Juvenile Division of the Cass County circuit court pursuant to the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. This Court held that since the Department of Children and Family Services was given custody of the minor by a circuit court under the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, the Department was not subject to the liability imposed by the Parental Responsibility Law, and that the Department was not liable at common law for the reason that no negligence was shown.\nClaimant does not seek relief in the case at bar under the Parental Responsibility Law (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 70, par. 52), and the exclusion set forth therein with respect to minors subject to the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act does not apply.\nIt appears in the case at bar that the miscreants who caused the damage to Claimant\u2019s insured had in fact \u201cescaped\u201d from the legitimate constraints imposed on them pursuant to the regulations and directives of the Illinois Department of Corrections when burglarizing and damaging the home of Claimant\u2019s insured. Therefore, the damage to Claimant\u2019s insured was caused while the miscreants were \u201cat liberty\u201d after having exceeded the legitimate constraints imposed by the Illinois Department of Corrections on their activities.\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimants be, and hereby are, awarded the sum of $3,963.38 as their damages in this cause sustained.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Roe, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James B. Bleyer, for Claimants.",
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 78-CC-1090\nRoyal Globe Insurance and Dennis and Sarah Adams, Claimants, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 1, 1982.\nJames B. Bleyer, for Claimants.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0161-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 322
}
