{
  "id": 2809889,
  "name": "Henry F. Meyers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meyers v. State",
  "decision_date": "1937-05-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 2782",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "472",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "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": "228 Ill. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5628119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/228/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 Ill. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3214381
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/182/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 Ill. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3177845
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/171/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2721035
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/95/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3068,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08463871831909892
    },
    "sha256": "8141ed6673df3e2ebe91ea4f066de6f931d4c760aea327514774db5c2c7a5150",
    "simhash": "1:49452bbbec251449",
    "word_count": 555
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:12.493466+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry F. Meyers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant filed Ms complaint herein on December 27, 1935 and alleges therein that on March 5th, 1935 he was committed to the Cook County jail on a charge of bastardy; that wMle in said jail he was put to work at different kinds of work; that on June 15th, 1935 he was assigned to the bakery detail and put to work on a bread slicing machine wMch was operated by man power; that at a moment when the knife had ceased to operate, claimant put Ms right hand into the receptacle to remove the bread that had been cut and while so doing, and while in the exercise of all due care and caution for his own safety, the slicing knife was put into operation and the claimant\u2019s third finger of his right hand was severed at the first knuckle.\nClaimant contends that said slicing machine was not equipped with the necessary guards or safety appliances, and that the failure to so equip the same constituted gross negligence on the part of the respondent; also that the stump of Ms finger was so carelessly and negligently sutured and sewn by the attending physician that as a result thereof it is bulky and cumbersome and interferes with claimant\u2019s ability to perform his duties. By reason of which he claims damages, including loss of earnings, in the total amount of $4,150.00.\nThe Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case for the reason that the respondent is not hable under the facts set forth in the complaint.\nTMs court has repeatedly held that the State in the maintenance of its charitable and penal institutions is engaged in a governmental function, and that in the exercise of such functions, it is not liable for the negligence of its servants and agents in the absence of a statute making it so liable. Schwab vs. State, 4 C. C. R. 77; Burghardt vs. State, 5 C. C. R. 221; Pelka vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 390; Sturrock vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 157; Parks vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 535; Schaefer vs. State, No. 1968, decided at the September, 1935, term of this court; White vs. State, No. 2859, decided at the May, 1936, term of this court; Edward Shilkitis vs. State, No. 2355, decided at the January, 1937, term of this court.\nSuch decisions of this court are in harmony with repeated decisions of our Supreme Court.\nHollenbeck vs. Winnebago County, 95 Ill. 148.\nKinnare vs. City of Chicago, 171 Ill. 332.\nCity of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135.\nTollefsen vs. City of Ottawa, 228 Ill. 134.\nMinear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549.\nGebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234.\nSee also 25 R. C. L. p. 407, sec. 43; 13 R. C. L. p. 944, sec. 8; and 8 R. C. L. Supp. p. 5580, sec. 43.\nThere is no statute making the State liable in cases of this kind, and the motion of the Attorney General must therefore be sustained.\nMotion to dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius E. Epstein, for claimant.",
      "Otto Kerner, Attorney General; John Kasserman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2782\nHenry F. Meyers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed May 12, 1937\nJulius E. Epstein, for claimant.\nOtto Kerner, Attorney General; John Kasserman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 490,
  "last_page_order": 492
}