{
  "id": 6057303,
  "name": "Eugene Deffenbaugh, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Deffenbaugh v. State",
  "decision_date": "1981-07-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 80-CC-0055",
  "first_page": "247",
  "last_page": "250",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 247"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2766568
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "8"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/30/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.E.2d 72",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. App. 2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2818719
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/91/0241-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 342,
    "char_count": 4962,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17260639519910234
    },
    "sha256": "271ada49dcd021a1c708b8c5d3f6d123923f40bc9097385f03abf143ce202024",
    "simhash": "1:01348503923164dd",
    "word_count": 862
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:43.791876+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eugene Deffenbaugh, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Poch, J.\nThe Claimant brings this action seeking damages for property damage to his automobile, which was involved in a collision, while being driven by his wife, with a snow plow truck operated by the State of Illinois on December 8, 1978.\nPrior to the hearing before a commissioner of this Court the Respondent, State of Illinois, admitted, pursuant to a request to admit facts that on December 8, 1978, an employee of the State, Glenn F. Corbly, was driving a State truck snow plow east on Route 136, near Interstate 57 in Rantoul, Illinois. It was admitted that Corbly was acting in the scope of his employment and while so engaged he was involved in a collision with the Claimant\u2019s automobile, which was being driven by the Claimant\u2019s wife.\nAn evidentiary hearing was held before commissioner Barnes. The evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the State snow plow and Claimant\u2019s automobile were proceeding in an easterly direction on Route 136, which is a 4-lane highway with a concrete median strip where this incident occurred. Claimant\u2019s automobile, which was driven by his wife, proceeded to attempt to overtake the snow plow in the left-hand lane. The snow plow moved toward the center and then attempted a turn into an exit ramp, which was the wrong way. The snow plow was not engaged in any maintenance work at the time of the accident other than perhaps the reasonable inference of checking the highway for any drifting snow. The snow plow did not give any turn signal and was in the right lane when it began to turn left. The Claimant\u2019s wife tried to brake to avoid the impact. The Claimant\u2019s wife spoke to the plow driver who told her, \u201cI didn\u2019t see you coming. I didn\u2019t think you would pass me that quick.\u201d\nThe damage to the Claimant\u2019s auto cost $3,695.16 to repair which included the cost of towing the vehicle from the scene.\nThe State did not offer any evidence in contravention to the Claimant.\nThe Claimant contends that the Respondent\u2019s employee was negligent in the operation of the plow which was the sole proximate cause of the collision. The State urges that in addition to the Claimant\u2019s wife\u2019s contributory negligence the provisions of section 11 \u2014 205(f) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 11\u2014205(f)), made the operator of the State vehicle immune from liability.\nA review of the evidence shows that the Respondent\u2019s driver did not drive within a single lane, that he did not move from one lane without ascertaining that it could be done so with safety and that no signal was given of the intention to do so. These actions are violations of sections 11\u2014709, 11\u2014801, and 11\u2014804 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 95\u00bd, pars. 11\u2014709, 11\u2014801, 11\u2014804). A violation of the statute is prima facie evidence of negligence which can be rebutted. (Csalany v. Senesac (1968), 91 Ill. App. 2d 241, 234 N.E.2d 72.) This is a question of fact which will be resolved in the Claimant\u2019s favor because the State never offered any evidence to overcome the Claimant\u2019s evidence.\nSection 11\u2014205(f) of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides in part that:\n\u201cThe provisions of the Chapter, ... do not apply to persons, motor vehicles and other equipment while actually engaged in work upon the surface of the highway . . .\u201d\nThe evidence shows that the driver of the plow did not have the blade down and was not in the process of removing any ice or snow from the highway or salting the surface at the time.\nEven if the driver were engaged in work upon the highway, a State employee is held to a standard of ordinary care in the work being performed. (Kloese v. State (1974), 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 4, 8.) Therefore, Corbly was required to drive in a manner similar to an ordinarily prudent person under the like circumstances. The evidence shows that he did not do so where he failed to keep a lookout for following vehicles. His negligence is the proximate cause of the collision.\nThe State also alleges that the Claimant\u2019s wife was contributorily negligent. The Claimant states that his wife was in a bailor-bailee relationship and therefore any negligence of her\u2019s would not be imputed to him. (Rains v. State (1965), 25 111. Ct. Cl. 130, 137.) The evidence shows that, regardless of the legal relationship between the Claimant and his wife at the time she drove the car, she was not negligent in the operation of the vehicle. Therefore, the Claimant shall recover for his loss due to the collision.\nThe evidence is not disputed that the Claimant incurred and paid $3670.16 to repair the vehicle and that he incurred and paid $25.00 for towing charges. Since the amount of damages is not disputed the Claimant shall be awarded the sum of $3695.16.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Poch, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Reno, O\u2019Byrne & Kepley, for Claimant.",
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 80-CC-0055\nEugene Deffenbaugh, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed July 13, 1981.\nReno, O\u2019Byrne & Kepley, for Claimant.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0247-01",
  "first_page_order": 405,
  "last_page_order": 408
}