{ "id": 2813825, "name": "Donald K. Simpson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Simpson v. State", "decision_date": "1936-11-10", "docket_number": "No. 2907", "first_page": "321", "last_page": "324", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 321" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "id": 8793, "name": "Illinois Court of Claims" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "332 Ill. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5213197 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/332/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 Ill. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 Ill. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5201093 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/329/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 Ill. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5102390 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/309/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 Ill. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5290826 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/354/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ill. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4727760 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/259/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3214381 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/182/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2721035 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/95/0148-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 357, "char_count": 5810, "ocr_confidence": 0.562, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08468543918969793 }, "sha256": "ecd264ae80983c85fce2c5d5655ca7ea40ac3760b0bd491c826009e742098b47", "simhash": "1:3831e67325a49d61", "word_count": 1024 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:12.493466+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Donald K. Simpson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mb. Chief Justice Hollebich\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPrior to and on the 10th day of May, A. D. 1935 claimant was in the employ of the respondent as an assistant recreational supervisor at St. Charles School for Boys at St. Charles, Illinois. On the last mentioned date, while in the course of Ms employment, claimant was assaulted with a shovel by two inmates who were then and there in his charge, and who were attempting to escape from such institution.\nClaimant filed Ms complaint herein on May 21st, 1936, in wMch he alleges that he sustained serious and permanent injuries as the result of the aforementioned assault upon him, and in wMch he asks for an * award in the sum of $10,000.00 as compensation for such injuries.\nThe Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case for the reason that no claim for compensation was made within six months after the accident and no application for compensation was filed within one year after the date of the injury or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, as required by Section 24 of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nClaimant in his reply brief states that it was not his purpose or intention to apply for compensation under the Compensation Act, and states that he relies for his recovery on Paragraph four of Section six of the Court of Claims Act, which provides that tMs court is authorized \u2018 \u2018 to hear and determine all claims and demands, legal and equitable, liquidated or unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, which the State as a sovereign commonwealth should, in equity and good conscience, discharge and pay.\u201d\nThe meaning and effect of tMs provision of the Court of Claims Act was considered in the case of Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207, where tMs court, after an exhaustive review of the previous cases on the subject, said (p. 221):\n\u201cWe conclude, therefore, that Section four (4) of Paragraph six (6) of the Court of Claims Act, which provides as follows, to-wit: The Court of Claims shall have power: \u201cto hear and determine all claims and demands, legal and equitable, liquidated and unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, which the State as a sovereign commonwealth, should, in equity and good conscience, discharge and pay\u201d; merely defines the jurisdiction of the court, and does not create a new liability against the State nor increase or enlarge any existing liability; that the jurisdiction of this court is limited to claims in respect of which the claimant would be entitled to redress against the State either at law or in equity, if the State were suable; that this court has no authority to allow any claim unless there is a legal or equitable obligation on the part of the State to pay the same, however much the claim might appeal to the sympathies of the court; that unless the claimant can bring himself within the provisions of a law giving him the right to an award, he cannot invoke the principles of equity and good conscience to secure such an award.\u201d\nThe law as laid down in the Crabtree case has been followed by this court in numerous cases decided since that time.\nIt therefore becomes necessary for the claimant to bring himself within the provisions of a law giving him the right to an award, before we are authorized to allow such award.\nIn the conduct and maintenance of its penal institutions the State is engaged in a governmental function. It is a well settled rule of law that the State in the exercise of its governmental functions is not liable for the negligence of its servants or agents in the absence of a statute making it so liable.\nHollenbeck vs. County of Winnebago, 95 Ill. 148.\nCity of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135.\nMinear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549.\nGebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234.\n25 R. C. L. p. 407, Sec. 43.\nThis rule has been applied by this court in numerous cases.\nPeterson vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 77.\nPerry vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 81.\nBraun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104.\nChumbler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138.\nCrabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207.\nBucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241.\nMorrissey vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 40.\nBaumgart vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 220.\nPelli vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 324.\nRyan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 361.\nRheman vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 556.\nConsequently, there is no liability on the part of the State in this case in the absence of a statute making it so liable. The only statute imposing a liability for injuries to State employees is the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act of this State. However, even if the claimant based his right to recover on the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, he still would not be entitled to recover under the allegations of his complaint, for the reason that the complaint on its face shows that no claim for compensation was made within six months after the accident; that no compensation was paid to the claimant, and that application for compensation was not filed witMn one year after the date of the injury, as required hy Section 24 of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nCompliance with the aforementioned requirements of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is jurisdictional, and is a condition precedent to a right to maintain an action under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nInland Rubber Co. vs. Ind. Com., 309 Ill. 43.\nDuQuoin School District vs. Ind. Com., 329 Ill. 543.\nChicago Board of Underwriters vs. Ind. Com., 332 Ill. 511.\nCity of Rochelle vs. Ind. Com., 332 Ill. 386.\nThis court, therefore, has no authority to allow an award, and the motion of the Attorney General must he sustained. Motion sustained. Case dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mb. Chief Justice Hollebich" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ellis & Hamilton, for claimant.", "Otto Kebneb, Attorney General; John Kassbbman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 2907\nDonald K. Simpson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed November 10, 1936.\nEllis & Hamilton, for claimant.\nOtto Kebneb, Attorney General; John Kassbbman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent." }, "file_name": "0321-01", "first_page_order": 341, "last_page_order": 344 }