text:
    (No. 5326
    James P. Sherlock Construction Company, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 12, 1974.

    Fischer, Guy, Jacobson & Pauker, Attorneys for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Zeamore A. Ader, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Burks, J.

In this action, claimant seeks payment of $3,172 for services rendered under an alleged oral contract with the respondent.

It appears from the evidence that, on July 27, 1963, respondent requested claimant to prepare plans and specifications for alterations to be made on behalf of the respondent in the Museum of Science and Industry Building in Chicago. The space was to be occupied by the Chicago Division of the Illinois Civil Defense Agency, which was considering moving its office from the first floor of the Museum of Science and Industry to the basement of that building. The record shows that claimant did prepare certain plans and specifications for the said alterations and submitted them to the Illinois Civil Defense Agency. Claimant alleges that, under an oral contract with the respondent, claimant was to be paid as a fee for these services an amount equivalent to 7% of the projects budgeted cost of $45,318.

Respondent contends that claimant’s alleged oral contract did not conform to legal requirements; that this claim was not proved by a preponderance of the evidence; acd that the plans submitted by the claimant were, in effect, drawings which claimant was to have used on the proposed work. As it developed, bids were never asked on the job because the Civil Defense Agency, instead of moving into the basement of the Museum of Science and Industry, decided to move its facilities to Springfield.

Since the issue as to whether claimant had a valid oral contract is primarily a question of fact, we will summarize the testimony of the key witnesses who appear to be competent and knowledgeable as to the facts, and the exhibits which have the most probative value.

Lawrence Murphy, a witness for the claimant, was Staff Engineer for the State of Illinois and was, from 1961 to 1964, Chief Engineer for the Civil Defense Agency at its headquarters in the Museum of Science and Industry. He was on loan to this agency from the Department of Public Works and Buildings. Murphy testified that claimant had previously performed various repair jobs for the Civil Defense Agency on oral contracts, jobs in the neighborhood of $500 or $600. Murphy said he never had occasion to question claimant’s reliability, the quality of claimant’s work nor the reasonableness of the price claimant charged, which was always discussed in advance if over $100.

Murphy further stated that, at various meetings, he and Chauncey Carveth, Executive Director of the Civil Defense Agency, indicated affirmatively that claimant was to be paid for preparing and submitting the plans and specifications. Murphy’s statements to the claimant were always on direct order of Mr. Carveth, the Executive Director. He stated that the claimant’s representative, Edson Lee Casper, altended approximately 15 meetings which mainly involved changes in the plans and specifications in order to cut down the cost of the project. Murphy further testified that it would be unusual for a bidder, in bidding on a job, to submit detailed plans and specifications to the party asking for bids, as respondent seems to contend in its theory of the case. Plans and specifications, of course, are customarily submitted to the bidder by the party asking for the bids.

Murphy further stated that, although claimant might bid on this job, claimant was hired only for the work of preparing the plans and specifications, and that the work which claimant did was necessary to determine costs.

Henry Zedd, subpoenaed as a witness for the claimant, was Chief of Field Operations for the Civil Defense Agency during the period of August, 1961 to November, 1964. His duties included the preparation of the budget for the Civil Defense Agency. Zedd testified that he prepared a memorandum on September 17, 1963, indicating that, as of the end of September, there was $45,456.64 available for the renovation job at the lower level of the Museum of Science and Industry Building. This memorandum was placed in evidence as claimant’s Exhibit No. 5. Zedd was never present when there was a firm arrangement established with the claimant for drafting the plans and payment for this service.

Edson Lee Casper, President of claimant corporation, testified that claimant had done 8 or 10 jobs for the Civil Defense Agency, and that in only one. case was there a written contract. He testified that he was contacted by Lawrence Murphy of the Civil Defense Agency and was told of the proposed renovation of the lower level of the Museum of Science and Industry Building, and that he was being retained to prepare the specifications for the alterations. He stated that, in discussing his fee, he informed Mr. Murphy that the customary charge for engineering, architectural work and alterations was around 7%. Casper said he was told that he might be invited to bid on the job, but he may be disqualified from bidding if he prepared the plans and specifications. Nevertheless, he said, it was clearly understood that claimant’s company was being engaged merely to prepare plans and specifications. The price to be paid his company was a percentage figure of 7% which Mr. Casper said was agreed to by both Lawrence Murphy and Chauncey Carveth for the respondent; that subsequently, in connection with this project, Casper met with Civil Defense Agency personnel 25 or 30 times; that three or four stages of the plans were presented to the Civil Defense Agency on which were made revisions, alterations and changes for various purposes; that subsequently, the final drawings were presented to the Agency. Casper stated the invoice of $3,172 submitted by claimant was arrived at by taking 7% of the budgeted cost of the alterations; that this was the customary and usual practice. Casper estimated that he spent 60 to 80 hours on the project.

Col. Donovan M. Vance, Director of Civil Defense for the State of Illinois, although called as a witness for respondent, identified many of claimant’s exhibits which tend to support claimant’s contentions. However, Col. Vance testified that he did not authorize Mr. Carveth or anyone else in his office to enter into any form of contract with anyone to draft plans and specifications for the basement area. He stated that he did authorize his personnel, including Mr. Murphy, to review the matter and find out what it might cost to renovate and rebuild the basement for the Civil Defense Agency’s use. He admitted that Murphy was expected to seek outside help and assistance from the claimant, Sherlock Construction Company, but just to get a "horseback estimate” of the cost from the plans he said Murphy and his assistant had prepared. He admitted that he participated in discussions with claimant’s president, Mr. Casper, and claimant’s staff regarding the remodeling and the suitability of the area to the Civil Defense Agency and the price of the remodeling. Col. Vance said he considered Sherlock Construction Company a remodeling firm; that claimant had previously done work for the Civil Defense Agency and the Museum of Science and Industry, and that claimant was held in high regard by the Museum of Science and Industry.

Edson Lee Casper, recalled as a witness for claimant, contradicted the most pertinent part of Col. Vance’s testimony by stating that respondent’s Lawrence Murphy never prepared any sort of detailed plans in connection with the renovation project at the Museum. He said that respondent’s Exhibit No. 1 merely shows the then existing conditions in the space presently occupied and to be occupied; that it is called a line drawing, and a contractor could not possibly bid on a job based on these drawings. No alterations or new work are indicated on these drawings of the respondent. Casper said that respondent’s drawings, referred to by Col. Vance, were of no value, and that they were never even submitted to the claimant.

Mr. Casper confirmed, as Henry Zedd had earlier testified, that Col. Vance became ill shortly after his appointment as Director of Civil Defense but said that Col. Vance was present at one of the early discussions on the renovation project and again before the plans were finished. Casper said that Col. Vance personally ordered certain items taken out of claimant’s plans.

Warren Rukgaber, an auditor with the Office of Civil Defense, the only other witness for the respondent, merely testified as to certain lapsed appropriations of the Civil Defense Agency budget for the 1961-1963 biennium and as to certain supplementary request for funds for the renovation project in question. His testimony had no significant bearing on the issue before us.

Examining claimant’s exhibits in the light of the oral testimony, we find the following facts clearly established:

In August of 1963, claimant finished the preparation of the plans and specifications and turned them over to the Civil Defense Agency. [Cl. Ex. 1 and 2]

On September 3, 1963, claimant submitted its invoice, in the amount of $3,127 to the Agency for the services which had been performed. [Cl. Ex. 8].

On September 4, 1963, Colonel Vance wrote to Francis S. Lorenz, Director of the Department of Public Works and Buildings at Springfield, requesting that "drawings and specifications for work to be completed in the Museum be reviewed”. [Cl. Ex. 17]. We have noted that Col. Vance testified at the hearing, in June of 1968, that the plans he referred to in this letter were plans drawn by Mr. Murphy. However, both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Casper testified that Mr. Murphy had not prepared plans. Hence, we conclude that the only plans and specifications that had been prepared were done by the claimant.

On October 24, 1963, the Agency wrote to the claimant [Cl. Ex. 9] enclosing a voucher in the invoiced amount. In this letter the claimant was advised that "upon receipt of this signed Invoice-Voucher, it will be forwarded by us to Springfield for payment”. [This letter was signed "For the Director — Letha T. Black, Administrative Assistant”].

Claimant completed respondent’s voucher and returned it on October 28, 1963. After some time passed and no payment was received, claimant wrote to Col. Vance on January 31, 1964, and requested payment. Failing to receive a response, Mr. Casper wrote to Col. Vance on March 27, 1964 and again requested payment.

On April 7, 1964, Col. Vance replied by letter advising that payment had not been made because he had no evidence of authorization by the Agency for the work done by claimant. [Cl. Ex. 13].

Upon receipt of that letter from Col. Vance, claimant secured and submitted a letter from Mr. C. E. Carveth, Executive Director of the Agency.

The court takes notice that the said letter of Mr. Carveth, dated May 5, 1964, was attached as Exhibit A in claimant’s Bill of Particulars. Mr. Carveth was traveling in the Far East at the time of the hearing and could not be personally present. His said letter, however, was admitted into evidence as claimant’s Exhibit 14. The Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Morton Zaslavsky, representing the respondent, carefully examined the letter and stated that he had no objection to its admission [Tr. p. 123]. We find Mr. Carveth’s letter to be of sufficient importance to recite its full text, which reads as follows:

"May 5, 1964.
James P. Sherlock Construction Co., Inc.
6253 South Kimbark
Chicago, Illinois
Attn: Mr. Lee Casper
Re: Plans and specifications for alterations in space in the Museum of Science and Industry to be occupied by Civil Defense Agency.
"Gentlemen:
This will confirm to you the following facts:
Prior to July 27, 1963, Mr. L. E. Murphy and I, as authorized officers of the Illinois Civil Defense Agency, on behalf of the Agency, authorized and requested you to prepare plans and specifications for the intended alterations. We informed you on behalf of the Agency that you would be paid a fee for your services, consisting of 7% of the budgeted cost, or of any contract price, for doing the work, whichever would be lower.
Accordingly, you prepared a preliminary layout and a cost estimate, which you presented to a meeting of our executives on July 29, 1963, at which meeting the following persons attended:
Col. D. M. Vance State Director of Civil Defense
C. Carveth Mr. Zedd
L.E. Murphy Mr. Briton
Mr. Clark
At this meeting your retainer on the basis above stated was approved, by Mr. Murphy and myself upon our receiving the approval of Col. Vance, State Director of Civil Defense. It was agreed by our committee that this arrangement was independent of the fact that you might later be a successful (or unsuccessful) bidder on the contract work.
At the meeting certain changes in the plans, specifications, and budget figures were agreed upon and you were then requested to proceed accordingly to prepare the final plans and specifications, which you did.
There is no question but that you were authorized to do the work for which you submitted an invoice, and I know of no reason why the same should not be paid, since your services were satisfactorily performed in accordance with your retainer.
Very truly yours,
s/ C. E. Carveth
C. Carveth

Respondent argues in its brief that this claim is in violation of the Statutes of the State of Illinois and, accordingly, there is no legal basis for recovery. Respondent cites an Illinois Statute in force at the time in question which reads as follows:

"Sec. 132.9. Renovations costing $2,500 or more — Supervision of Architect or Engineer. Sec. 9. Any contract entered into or expenditure of funds by a State Agency for remodeling, renovation or construction, involving an expenditure in excess of $2,500.00, shall be subject to the supervision of a licensed architect or engineer and no payment shall be paid for such remodeling, renovation or construction unless the vouchers or invoice for such work is accompanied by a written certificate of such licensed "architect or engineer that the payment represents work satisfactorily completed: . . .” (Ch. 127, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1961).

Respondent states that this is a claim in excess of said $2,500 and claimant has not proved that the voucher referred to in claimant’s Exhibit 9 was "accompanied by a written certificate of a licensed architect or engineer” that the work was satisfactorily completed.

We note from the records that, although Mr. Casper of James P. Sherlock Construction Company was neither an architect or licensed engineer, claimant had the services of a licensed engineer who worked for the claimant in this matter on a retainer and certified the plans. We refer to the following statement from a letter of October 4, 1963 [Cl. Ex. 18] from Charles F. Pope, Executive Assistant, to Lorentz A. Johanson, Supervising Architect:

"They have had drawings and specifications prepared by John J. Weider, Structural Engineers, 343 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois through the Sherlock Construction Company who had been referred to them by the management of the Museum of Science and Industry in which the Agency is housed.”
The same letter from Mr. Pope further stated,
"The available funds are $45,000.00, including professional fees for Architects or Engineers. Col. Clark also advised they had a verbal agreement with Sherlock Construction Company, or Mr. Weider, to pay something over $3000.00, or approximately l'A% for plans and specifications. These plans and specifications were prepared under the direction of a Mr. Lawrence Murphy who, at that time, was assigned to the Agency as a technical adviser, but is no longer with them. Mr. Murphy, at the time, was I believe on leave from the Division of Highways and is working in that Division again.”
"Mr. Weider is a registered engineer in the State of Illinois, in good standing. Since the Agency is anxious to have this work done at the earliest possible time......and Mr. Weider has already billed the Agency for his fee,... we suggest that arrangements be made for the Division to work with him to produce satisfactory contract documents.”

In further support of its position, certain cases and statutory provisions are cited by respondent which can be distinguished from the instant case. For example, respondent cites, Schnepp and Barnes, a corporation, v. State, 10 C.C.R. 609, which involves a situation in which this court says at page 616, that it was considering an award for "printing for which no contract was held by the claimant”. In the instant case, we find that the claimant did have a contract. It had an oral contract to do the work requested. There was ample testimony to support this fact. Claimant had previously done work for the respondent under an oral contract on numerous occasions.

The claimant’s contract called for the production of drawings preliminary to the commencement of an anticipated renovation project. The agreement was not for the performance of the renovation work itself nor for supplying the materials to be installed. The claimant’s work was performed antecedent to the coming into being of the type of circumstances governed by the statutory provisions cited by the respondent. The claimant’s work was not done as part of the renovation itself. That work was to be done pursuant to a separate contract to be let after bids were taken. This appears to remove the case at bar from the statute cited by the respondent, Ch. 127, Sec. 5.05, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1961, which purported to give the Supervising Architect in the Department of Public Works and Buildings exclusive power to contract for construction and repairs of state buildings. Moreover, the letter of Mr. Pope, Administrative Assistant, quoted above, appears to have ratified the contract authorized in this case.

Respondent also calls our attention to Illinois Central Railroad Company v. State, 10 C.C.R. 493, which deals with a claim based on a contract entered into by the railroad with the "ground superintendent” of the Kankakee State Hospital for repairs which were made and which had a definite price attributable to them prior to the time the work was done. This court favorably considers the argument that the statutes then in force conferred the contractual authority on the Director of the Department of Public Welfare and not the grounds superintendent, and that no enforceable contract resulted. In the case at bar, however, the claimant acted with the Director’s approval after being given the express order to proceed by the Executive Director, who had contractual authority.

The money for the claimant’s compensation was to come from within the funds generally budgeted and appropriated to the Civil Defense Agency for this purpose. Zedd, who prepared the budget request, testified that it included money for plans and specifications in connection with the renovation. However, the renovation project was abandoned; the Civil Defense Agency later moved its office to Springfield; and the funds that had been appropriated for "contractual services” for the renovation project lapsed.

Respondent does not challenge or question the reasonableness of the 7% engineering fee in this case, but merely says there was no specified budgeted cost on which to compute the amount claimed. This overlooks the testimony of Mr. Zedd who prepared the budget which included a figure of $45,456.64 for the renovation job. Also the letter of Mr. Pope of the state architect’s office who wrote, "The available funds are $45,000.00 including professional fees for Architects and Engineers”.

This court has in no way altered its opinion expressed in Illinois Central Railroad Company, v. State, 10 C.C.R. 493, at page 497, that informal agreements such as here alleged open the door to serious abuses of public funds, are dangerous to the public good and are not be condoned. However, the question before us is not whether such oral contracts should be condoned. We believe there are now adequate safeguards in our statutes to preclude a repetition of the circumstances that occurred in this particular case.

Here the only question for us to determine is whether claimant has proved its claim that it had a valid oral contract, as alleged, that should be enforceable by an award in this court. On this issue, we find that claimant has proved its claim by a preponderance of the evidence and is entitled to an award in a sum equal to 7% of $45,000, the smaller of the amounts shown in the evidence to have been budgeted for the renovation project.

Therefore, for services rendered in accordance with its contract, claimant is hereby awarded the sum of Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($3,150.00).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 74-CC-144
    Ruth J. Jacobs, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Personnel, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Ruth J. Jacobs, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-224
    Leeps, Inc., Henry C. Meyer, and John M. Falasz, Jr., their attorney, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Lane, Falasz, Pollman & Munday, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-354
    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Texaco, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-368
    Betty Unger Watson, PH.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Betty Unger Watson, PH.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-383
    Springfield Catholic Charities, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

      William P. Sheehan, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-406
    B. L. Petty, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    B. L. Petty, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-421
    Edgar F. Eldridge, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Edgar F. Eldridge, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-425
    Frank A. Thomas, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Frank A. Thomas, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-454
    Illinois Sickle Cell Foundation, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Illinois Sickle Cell Foundation, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-457
    Dreymiller & Kray, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Geister, Schnell, Richards & Brown, Attorney for Claimant.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-460
    Richard F. Nash, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Roberts, Gundlach & Lee, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-461
    Richard F. Nash, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Roberts, Gundlach & Lee, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-471
    Buske Lines, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Buske Lines, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-475
    Andrew F. Guschwan, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Martin Brozosky, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-487
    St. Therese Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    St. Therese Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-498
    Miller Industrial Supply Co., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Miller Industrial Supply Co., Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-499
    Dr. Lewis Trupin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Dr. Lewis Trupin, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-500
    Mobil Oil Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-504
    Mobil Oil Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Agriculture, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-508
    London Suburan Service, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

      London Suburban Service, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


author: Perlin, C. J.

text:
    (No. 74-CC-526
    Thomas Plumbing & Heating Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Thomas Plumbing & Heating Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C. J.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-529
    Gulf Oil Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Gulf Oil Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-537
    Gulf Oil Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Gulf Oil Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-538
    International Harvester Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    International Harvester Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-549
    Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-556
    American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-557
    Robert M. Goodwin, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Robert M. Goodwin, M.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-558
    Chicago Progressive Mercantile Co., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

      Chicago Progressive Mercantile Co., Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-564
    Donald Schwab, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Donald Schwab, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-581
    Hellrung Construction Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Capital Development Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 17, 1974.

    Hellrung Construction Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


author: Holderman, J.

text:
    (No. 73-CC-234
    Ina Ruth Grindle, Claimant, vs. Department of Labor, State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 18, 1974.

    William P. Sheehan, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Holderman, J.

This is a cause of action filed by the claimant, Ina Ruth Grindle, against the State of Illinois alleging the following:

That she was a certified Civil Service employee of the State of Illinois, Department of Labor, and was discharged from her certified position on September 21, 1971. After a hearing, the Civil Service Commission of the State of Illinois, on June 13, 1972, affirmed the dismissal. This decision was appealed to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Review Act.

On November 21, 1972, the Circuit Judge of Sangamon County entered an Order setting aside and reversing the decision of the Civil Service Commission. The Circuit Court ordered the claimant be reinstated to her Civil Service position and ordered that all back salary be paid and all her Civil Service rights be reinstated.

A copy of the Court Order is as follows:

"1. That the Plaintiff, Ina Ruth Grindle, mismarked approximately thirteen of twenty-four hundred reports.
2. That the mismarkings were of a mechanical nature and did not prejudice the conclusions and findings in the reports.
3. That the alleged mishandling of the Sparta Printing Company investigation was not supported by evidence.
4. That the record otherwise does not contain evidence sufficient to constitute "just cause” within the meaning of the statute governing demotion and discharge of Civil Service employees.
5. That the findings and decision of the Civil Service Commission are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
It Is Therefore Ordered that the decision of the Civil Service Commission is herewith set aside and reversed.
It Is Further Ordered that the Plaintiff, Ina Ruth Grindle, be reinstated by Defendants to her Civil Service position, together with all back salary and all other Civil Service rights.”

Respondent reimbursed the claimant for her salary from July 1, 1972 to January 15, 1973, inclusive.

The present matter at issue is the salary allegedly due the claimant for the period of September 21, 1971 to June 30, 1972, which amount is $6,153.84. This amount is based upon an itemization of salary record computation.

On September 4, 1973, a Stipulation was entered into by and between the claimant and respondent, which is as follows:

"1. That at a certain Administrative Review proceeding before the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, Case No. 411-72, in which Ina Ruth Grindle, Claimant herein was Plaintiff, and the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois and the Civil Service Commission of the State of Illinois were Defendants, the Court on November 21, 1972, entered its Order reinstating the Plaintiff to her Civil Service position, "together with all back salary and all other Civil Service rights.” A true copy of said Order is attached hereto and shall be admitted into evidence without objection by either party.
2. It is further stipulated by and between the parties that of the total back salary ordered to be paid to Ina Ruth Grindle, the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois has paid gross earnings to her in the amount of $4,438.00 through current appropriation funds covering the period of July 1,1972, to January 15,1973, inclusive.
3. That claimant seeks to recover for back pay for the period of September 21, 1971, to June 30, 1972, for which the appropriation has lapsed. Attached hereto is a copy of the Departmental Report of the Department of Labor, dated April 18, 1973, and said report shall be admitted into evidence without objection by either party.
4. That Claimant’s salary for the period beginning September 21, 1971, to June 30, 1972, was $6,153.84.
5. It is further stipulated that the report of the Department of Labor, dated May 2, 1973, shall be admitted into evidence without objection by either party.
6. That Claimant sought other employment during the period of September 21, 1971, to June 30, 1972, in and around her home town of Herrin, Illinois, but was unable to obtain any gainful employment.
7. That the copy or copies of the W2 forms of Claimant covering the period of September 21, 1971, through June 30, 1972, in additional to copy or copies of Form 1040, Federal Income Tax Return, covering the period September 21, 1971, to June 30, 1972, which are attached hereto, shall be admitted into evidence without objection by either party.”

A further Stipulation was made and entered into between the parties hereto in January, 1974. This Stipulation was to the effect that a letter from Donald A. Johnson, Administrative Assistant of the Department of Labor, dated December 5, 1973, shall be admitted into evidence without objection by either party, with a true copy of the letter being attached thereto, which letter stated the following:

"By our computation, the amounts which would have been deducted from the $6,153.84 owed Mrs. Grindle would have been $360.00 for F.I.C.A. and $246.15 for State Employees Retirement Contributions. The employee’s contribution rates for that period of time were 5.85% for State Employee’s Retirement and 4% for F.I.C.A. Presumably the Social Security Administration and the State Employees Retirement System would make a claim for their share from the State if benefits were restored to Mrs. Grindle for that period of time.”

It appears from, this Stipulation that from the $6,153.84 which is due the claimant, there should be deducted the sum of $360.00 for F.I.C.A. and $246.15 for State Employees Retirement Contributions.

An award is hereby entered to the Social Security Administration in the amount of $360.00 and to the State Employees Retirement Fund in the amount of $246.15.

An award is hereby entered to the claimant in the amount of $5,547.69.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-404
    Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 18, 1974.

    Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 5829
    Emile Washington, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 18, 1974.

    James P. Tatooles, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C. J.

Claimant Emile Washington has filed suit pursuant to Chapter 37, Illinois Revised Statutes, Section 439.8, claiming $15,000 damages for unjust imprisonment. That Statute establishes a maximum of $15,000 damages for unjust imprisonment for up to five years.

On January 22, 1967, one Delores Brooks was accosted by a group of approximately six youths, and raped by four of them. Claimant was arrested fleeing the scene of the crime, and on October 18, 1967, was convicted of the rape and sentenced to a term of from two to five years in the penitentiary. On February 25,1970, his conviction was reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court on the ground that he had not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Claimant was discharged from incarceration on April 13,1970, after having served two years, five months, and 26 days of his sentence.

The record before this Court raises several provocative questions. For instance, it is difficult to understand why claimant was apparently the only party ever prosecuted in connection with the rape of Delores Brooks. Claimant testified at his trial that a cousin, one Henry Summers, was at the scene of the crime, and at least had knowledge of what was being done to Ms. Brooks. Claimant also testified that Summers had told him that one "Jimmie Bell” was one the rapists. Yet it appears that neither Summers nor Bell was ever charged in connection with the crime.

At Claimant’s trial, Delores Brooks had testified that claimant was not among the youths who raped her. However, the prosecution proceeded upon a theory that claimant’s presence at the scene of the crime, and his flight from police, were sufficient to prove his complicity in the crime. The Appellate Court reversed the guilty verdict on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence that claimant had participated in or facilitated the rape by the other boys.

Called as a witness by the claimant in this proceeding, Delores Brooks again testified that claimant was not one of the rapists. She further testified that she did not know if claimant was present at the rape. Claimant himself testified that on January 22, 1967, he had been visiting a relative, and was on his way home when he innocently happened upon the scene of the crime.

Respondent presented no proof rebutting claimant’s evidence, and in fact concedes that claimant was innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned for almost two and one-half years. We, therefore, find that claimant has established his innocence of the fact of the crime for which he was incarcerated.

In Dirkans v. State, 25 C.C.R. 344 (1965), we said that in order for a claimant to recover for wrongful imprisonment, "the burden is upon (him) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that the time served in prison was unjust; (2) that the act for which he was wrongfully imprisoned was not committed by him; and (3) the amount of damages to which he is entitled.” Respondent asserts that claimant has not established the amount of damages to which he is entitled, and therefore should be awarded only a minimal recovery. Claimant contends that he should be awarded $15,000 as compensation for his unjust imprisonment.

Claimant was eighteen years old at the time of his conviction, and had an eighth grade education. Before being accused of the rape of Delores Brooks, claimant, had spent time in a youth correctional facility, but had no prior criminal record.

Prior to his incarceration claimant had been employed by the Corolite Corporation and earned between $65 and $70 per week. Upon his release he was hired by the Coca Cola Company, and earned $118 per week in take home pay.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $7,500.


text:
    (No. 5982
    John W. Dever and Margaret Dever, for the use of the Travelers Insurance Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 18, 1974.

    Barash & Stoerzbach, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C. J.

This cause was submitted upon the joint stipulation of the parties. On April 23, 1970, one Elizabeth Hart, a patient of the Galesburg State Research Hospital, escaped from an unlocked ward in the hospital and broke into the nearby home of John and Margaret Dever. She did a considerable amount of damage to the furnishings and the interior of the home before being apprehended by the hospital security force.

The degree of care owed by the State in operating a mental institution was considered by this Court in Callbeck v. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R. 722. There we said,

"The State, in operating a mental institution, and caring for mentally ill persons, is, of course, not an insurer of the safety of its employees. The State is, however, under the same duty as a private person or institution having custody of insane persons. It is required to exercise reasonable care in restraining and controlling dangerous, insane persons committed to its custody, so that they will not have the opportunity to inflict a foreseeable injury upon others.”

Thus to recover for the property damage inflicted by Elizabeth Hart, claimant, was obligated to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent did not use reasonable care in restraining and controlling Elizabeth Hart.

We find that claimant has sustained its burden of proof. The hospital records introduced into evidence establish that Elizabeth Hart had a history of violent outbursts, and that the hospital did not take reasonable precautions toward controlling her.

On April 30, 1970, following Elizabeth Hart’s escape, Dr. Angelo F. Zocchi, the Clinical Director of the Hospital, prepared a memorandum on the incident for Dr. Thomas T. Tourletes, the hospital superintendant. That memorandum establishes that the State had knowledge of the patient’s potential for destructive outbursts:

"After pursuing through two voluminous folders of the abovenamed, it is more than obvious that this girl has a long standing history of mental illness and impulsive acting out, dangerous to herself and to others.
At the time of her admission here in 1965 she was admitted on the basis of the certificates of two physicians describing her as violent, uncontrollable and disoriented, she was immediately placed on the security ward after she attempted to strangle the ambulance driver with whom she was riding.
On April 23, 1970, the patient was transferred from C-28 to D-22 because of inability to sleep, a state of tension, and a demanding and negativistic attitude. She received an IM of Thorazine around midnight and at 1:15 a.m. she was transferred to D-21. About eight hours later at 9:45 a.m. she was returned to C-28. The incident books and nursing notes do not indicate if an O.D. had been contacted and ordered the transfer back to Ward C-28. Dr. Haim explains her return to C-28 as ’routine’ due to the fact that she was on a day treatment on C-28. However, this would not explain why she was still on C-28 on the night of April 23.”

It is significant that Dr. Tourletes, the supervisor of the hospital, responded to the memorandum of Dr. Zocchi by writing, ”It is apparent that responsible personnel must be made aware and alert to this patient’s behavior and be required to manage her accordingly in the future.”

The hospital staff is charged with constructive knowledge of a patient’s behavioral history, particularly when the patient’s file reflects violent, uncontrollable and disoriented conduct. Clifton v. State of Illinois, 24 C.C.R. 404. It is clear that Elizabeth Hart had a history of assaultive behavior and had a foreseeable propensity to inflict personal and property damage. It is also clear that she was improperly assigned to an unlocked ward, C-28, during the daytime, from which she made her escape.

In the opinion of this Court, the negligence of Respondent has been established by a preponderence of the evidence.

The parties have stipulated that claimants were damaged in the amount of $566.18.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $556.18.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-238
    Joseph J. Brown, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Joseph J. Brown, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-370
    Glenn Walker, J., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Glenn Walker, Jr., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-374
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-375
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-376
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-377
    Burdett Oxygen Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-378
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-379
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-380
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-381
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-382
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-383
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-384
    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Burdett Oxygen Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-360
    Beauchamp’s Auto Service, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Beauchamps Auto Service, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-417
    Patrick O. Creviston, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Patrick O. Creviston, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-450
    Commonwealth Edison Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    George O. Shaffner and Joseph C. Sibley, Jr., Attorneys for Claimant.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-451
    Commonwealth Edison Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    George O. Shaffner and Joseph C. Sibley, Jr., Attorneys for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-452
    Commonwealth Edison Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    George O. Shaffner and Joseph O. Sibley, Jr., Attorneys for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-480
    Huston-Patterson Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Huston-Patterson Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-512
    Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-519
    United Cities Gas Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    United Cities Gas Company, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-520
    United Cities Gas Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    United Cities Gas Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-531
    Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-559
    Michael E. Taylor, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Michael E. Taylor, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-568
    Ray O’herron Co., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Ray O’herron Co., Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-572
    The Flora Clinic, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    The Flora Clinic, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-573
    Carrier Air Conditioning Company, A Division of Carrier Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Carrier Air Conditioning Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-582
    General Plate Makers Supply Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Personnel, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    General Plate Makers Supply Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-583
    A. C. Tobey, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

      A. C. Tobey, M.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-589
    Standard Photo Supply, A Division of Weiman Co., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Public Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    Kahn, Fischel, Weinberg & Brusslan, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-593
    Bilingual Education Services, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

      Bilingual Education Services, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-597
    The Flax Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1974.

    The Flax Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-211
    Bellefaire, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Bellefaire, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-400
    United States Steel Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Benjamin F. Cornelius, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-412
    A. Lemoncello Plumbing Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    A. Lemoncello Plumbing Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-466
    ASA Butler, Adm., Etc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    A. Wendell Wheadon, Attorney for Claimant.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-525
    Presbyterian — St. Luke’s Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Gardner, Carton, Douglas, Chilgren and Waud, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-567
    James G. Biddle Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    James B. Biddle Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-576
    West Publishing Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    West Publishing Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-587
    Standard Photo Supply, A Division of Weiman Co., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Fischel, Kahn, Weinberg & Brusslan, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C. J.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-594
    Spoon River FS, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Spoon River FS, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-601
    Checker Express Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Checker Express Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-616
    Smith Oil Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Smith Oil Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-627
    Bismarck Hotel, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Bismarck Hotel, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-630
    Louis R. Silverman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Capital Development Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    Louis R. Silverman, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-636
    James A. Aman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Registration and Education, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    James A. Aman, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-647
    American Assoc. of School Administrators, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 10, 1974.

    American Association of School Administrators, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-235
    National Education Association, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    National Education Association, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-240
    Vallarta Reporting Service, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    Vallarta Reporting Service, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-440
    St. James Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    WlLCZYNSKI, WlLCZYNSKI, ClAMBRONE, KaRWOSKI AND Petrarca, Ltd., Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-522
    Univ. of Chicago — Center for Continuing Education, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

      University of Chicago — Center for Continuing Education, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-550
    Amlings Flowerland, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    Amlings Flowerland, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-566
    I.K.T. Service, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    I.K.T. Service, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-606
    International Harvester Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    International Harvester Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-612
    Capital Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    Capital Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 5407
    Stanley W. Peterson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed July 12, 1973.

      Petition of Claimant for Rehearing denied May 13, 1974.

    Lisco & Field, by Robert F. Lisco, Attorney for Claimant.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler and Morton Zaslavsky, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C. J.

Claimant seeks recovery on the ground of unlawful incarceration pursuant to Chapter 37, §439.8(c) of the Illinois Revised Statutes, for his imprisonment at the Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois, from January 21, 1964, to September 16, 1966. The applicable provisions of the statute are as follows:

"§8. The court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters:
... .(c) All claims against the State for time unjustly served in prisons of this State where the persons imprisoned prove their innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned . . .”

It appears from the evidence and from stipulations that claimant was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury on the charge of murder by abortion in April, 1963. On November 29, 1963, the claimant was allowed to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of murder by abortion and to enter a plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter, wherein he was sentenced to a term of not less than nine nor more than ten years. Thereafter, a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on behalf of claimant in the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois. That court determined that the charge under which claimant was indicated (murder by abortion) had occurred subsequent to the enactment of the new Criminal Code of 1961, effective January 1, 1962. The court further held that the specific offense of murder by abortion having been eliminated by the new statutes, there was no offense such as murder by abortion at the time of the indictment.

It further held that involuntary manslaughter was not a lesser included offense in the indictment and that there was no charge to which the plea of guilty could be made. Claimant, therefore, contends that his conviction and sentence are void, thus rendering the incarceration illegal and wrongful.

Claimant Stanley Peterson, who identified himself as an "assembler” confessed to having committed an abortion on Mrs. Dorothy Katalinich, deceased, but that he had been subjected to inhuman and cruel treatment while he was in custody of the Lake County authorities, and believed he could get out on bail if he confessed. He denied, at the time of the Court of Claims hearing, that he committed the abortion which resulted in the death of Mrs. Katalinich, but admitted that he has purchased a rubber catheter for her and that he had rented a cabin for her at the rear of a tavern in Lake County.

Joan Fitzjohn testified that she was present when the decedent first called claimant and arranged to meet him. The witness was with the decedent when arrangements were made to perform an abortion. On April 9, 1963, claimant came to decedent’s house and went into the bedroom with decedent carrying a bag. During this period the witness waited in another room of the decedent’s house. The decedent passed a fetus a few days later and the witness had occasion to observe it.

On April 26, 1963, the witness accompanied the decedent to a tavern where they met claimant. According to the witness, the decedent was worried because she did not bleed after passing the fetus on April 9th and she thought she might be having twins. The witness watched the decedent and claimant go into a bedroom of the cabin rented by claimant. Claimant was carrying a small bag. The witness did not stay in the room while the procedure was being performed by claimant, but when claimant said he was finished, she went into the bedroom and saw that the decedent was limp and unconscious. The witness observed claimant pull a catheter from the decedent. Claimant told her that he had committed hundreds of abortions in the last 20 years. The witness then took the decedent to the hospital in her car. Claimant had given her some money.

Respondent contends that claimant had not proved his innocence of the crime for which he was imprisoned as provided in the statute.

In the cases of Nathaniel Tate v. State of Illinois, 25 C.C.R. 245 (1965) and Jonnia Dirkans v. State of Illinois, 25 C.C.R. 343 (1965), the Court held that before an award can be made for wrongful incarceration, claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, "(1) that the time served in prison was unjust; (2) that the act for which he was wrongfully imprisoned was not committed by him; and (3) the amount of damages to which he is entitled. (Jack Flint vs. State of Illinois, 21 C.C.R. 80, George A. Pitts vs. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R. 258.)” (Dirkans at p. 351.)

The Court further stated in Dirkans at page 352:

"We find that claimant, Jonnia Dirkans, has substantially failed to prove his innocence of the crime for which he was imprisoned. It is the studied opinion of this Court that the legislature of the State of Illinois in the language of Chap. 37, Sec. 439.8C, Ill. Rev. Stat., intended that a claimant must prove his innocence of the "fact’ of the crime. It was not, we believe, the intention of the General Assembly to open the Treasury of the State of Illinois to inmates of its penal institutions by the establishment of their technical or legal innocence of the crimes for which they were imprisoned. It is our opinion the legislators intended to provide a manner of recourse in the Court of Claims, with a specific amount of recovery provided, for a claimant who is able to establish his complete innocence of the "fact" of the crime for which he was imprisoned.”

In the instant case, claimant Stanley Peterson has clearly failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was innocent of involuntary manslaughter, the crime for which he was imprisoned. He failed to produce even one witness to corroborate his testimony. (William Bender vs. State of Illinois, No. 5209 (1967).

Recovery is therefore denied.


text:
    (No. 7030
    Chicago Tribune Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 13, 1974.

    Chicago Tribune Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 3025
    Elva Jennings Penwell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1974.

    Gosnell, Benecki and Borden, Ltd., Attorney for Claimant.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Claimant filed her Petition for reimbursement for moneys expended for nursing care and help, medical services, and expenses from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1973, praying for an award in the sum of $5,302.96.

Claimant was seriously injured in an accident on the second day of February, 1936, while employed as a Supervisor at the Illinois Soldier’s and Sailor’s Children’s School at Normal, Illinois. The complete details of this injury can be found in the original cause of action, Penwell vs. State of Illinois, 11 C.C. R. 365, in which an initial award was made, and at which time jurisdiction was retained to make successive awards in the future, and this Court has periodically made supplemental awards to claimant to cover expenses incurred by her, the last award covering the time period from January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972.

A joint motion of claimant and respondent was filed herein requesting leave to waive the filing of briefs and arguments. In addition, claimant filed Exhibit "1”. The exhibit sets out those items upon which agreement has been had with claimant and respondent in the above cause. This motion was granted, and no further pleadings have been filed herein.

The Attorney General does not contest the veracity nor the propriety of the items and amounts set forth in claimant’s Exhibit "1”.

The Court, therefore, enters an award in favor of the claimant in the sum of Five Thousand, Three Hundred Two And 96/100 Dollars ($5,302.96). The matter of claimant’s need for additional care is reserved by this Court for future determination.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-5
    Ford Printing, Duplicating, Mailing, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Insurance, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Ford Printing, Duplicating, Mailing, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-40
    Capitol Machinery Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Capitol Machinery Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 73-CC-188
    Holiday Inn of Carbondale, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Governor’s Office of Human Resources, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Holiday Inn of Carbondale, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-54
    Methodist Hospital of Central Illinois, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Methodist Hospital of Central Illinois, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-134
    Clarence E. Boyd, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

      Clarence E. Boyd, M.D., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-149
    Blue M. Engineering Company, A Division of Blue M. Electric Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Blue M. Engineering Company, A Division of Blue M. Electric Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-185
    D. Koerner, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Capital Development Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    D. Koerner, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-212
    Superior Ambulance Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Superior Ambulance Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-226
    City of Chicago, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    City of Chicago, Claimant, by Edward F. King, Assistant Commissioner of Health.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-335
    Mansion View Lodge, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Governor’s Office of Human Resources, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Mansion View Lodge, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-336
    Mansion View Lodge, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Governor’s Office of Human Resources, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Mansion View Lodge, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-484
    John G. Meyer, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Dr. John G. Meyer, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-503
    Mobil Oil Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-516
    Percy E. Owens, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Percy E. Owens, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-518
    Grand Spaulding Dodge, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Grand Spaulding Dodge, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-521
    J. F. Incorporated, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Capital Development Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    J. F. Incorporated, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-563
    Forest Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Forest Hospital, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-580
    Casswood Treated Products, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Casswood Treated Products Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-585
    Mutual Wheel Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Mutual Wheel Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-591
    Wilbert G. Dieckhoff, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Wilbert G. Dieckhoff, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-599
    H. L. Wibbels, M.D., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    H. L. Wibbels, M.D., Claimant, pro se.

    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-604
    Commonwealth Edison Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Commonwealth Edison Co., Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-605
    National Railroad Passenger Corp. (AMTRAC), Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Registration and Education, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    National Railroad Passenger Corp. (AMTRAC), Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-607
    Central Office Equipment Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Central Office Equipment Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-609
    Central Office Equipment Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Central Office Equipment Co., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-611
    Teddy R. Price, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Teddy R. Price, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-615
    Ray Bogue Greer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Ray Bogue Greer, Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-622
    Decatur Memorial Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Decatur Memorial Hospital, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-631
    Lawrence Eugene Bayly, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Lawrence Eugene Bayly, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-637
    Southeastern Ill. Electric Coop., Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Joseph Hale, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-645
    Capital Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Office of the Comptroller, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Capital Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-648
    Central Office Equipment Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Industrial Commission, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Central Office Equip. Co., Claimant, pro se.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-649
    Meister Brothers, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Capital Development Board, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Meister Brothers, Inc., Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-652
    Cities Service Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Cities Service Oil Company, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 74-CC-660
    Burroughs Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Burroughs Corporation, Claimant, pro se.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.


text:
    (No. 5607
    Golda D. Hankla, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 4, 1973.

      Petition of Respondent for Rehearing granted March 13, 1974.

      Reaffirm prior award to Claimant May 15, 1974.

    Harris, Holbrook and Lambert, Attorneys for Claimant.
    William J. .Scott, Attorney General; Lee D. Martin and William E. Webber, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.
   Perlin, C. J.

Claimant Golda D. Hankla seeks recovery of damages of $14,000 which she alleges were caused by the negligence of Respondent when it let a fire from the trash dump at the Anna State Hospital burn several buildings and other material located upon her adjacent property.

The evidence shows that on the date of the fire, March 8, 1968, Claimant was the owner of approximately forty acres in Union County, Illinois, which was bordered on the south by land owned by the Anna State Hospital.

The Claimant testified that prior to March 8, 1968, improvements consisting of a house, a barn, a storage shed or smokehouse and a combination poultry house, had been located on the property, all of which were destroyed on the day in question, as well as a number of large trees and ground cover, resulting in bulldozing, "which upset the land and the terrain.”

Several witnesses testified that a fire had been burning at the Anna State Hospital Dump on the morning in question; Mr. Leland Whitaker, who lived on a farm adjacent to claimant’s property, testified that the day in question was windy and that he observed smoke coming from the dump area all day. Herbert Modglin, a forest fire warden, estimated that approximately 32 acres of claimant’s land had been burned and that on March 8, 1968, there was wind from the southwest with gusts up to 25 miles per hour. Modglin had examined claimant’s premises and noted that the path of the fire could be traced to the hospital’s dump. An aerial photograph also supports the conclusion of the origin of the fire, all of which testimony rebuts respondent’s theory that the origin of the fire might have come from another source.

On cross examination, claimant testified that the house and buildings had been vacant from February, 1953, until March, 1968, the date of the fire. The property had not produced any income during that time, and that in April, 1965, insurance agent, John C. Cassel had cancelled the fire insurance policy "due to the condition of your buildings.”

Claimant further testified that the property was appraised on April 7, 1966, at a value of $2,700, by Mr. Rayburn Ice and Mr. Lloyd Sitter, real estate appraisers for her mother’s inheritance tax return which was filed by claimant as executor of the estate. The affidavit of valuation filed with the Inheritance Tax Division of the State of Illinois and with the Clerk of the Court at the Union County Courthouse contained the following statement:

”8. That the buildings (house and barn) on parcel 3, a farm of forty acres, have sustained extensive damage from vandals and are in very poor condition from neglect and unoccupancy; that the farm land in Parcel 3 is overgrown and in need of clearing and rehabilitation.”

The house had been constructed in 1912 and was wired for electricity, although it did not have inside plumbing. Claimant stated that she had owned the house since 1965, and had spent nothing to repair it since that time, although she had planned to repair it.

Lowell Young testified for claimant that he is a licensed real estate broker and expressed his opinion that the market value of the Hankla property after the fire was between $4,000 to $6,000. He estimated that the fair market value prior to the burning was $18,000 to $20,000. Mr. Young based his estimate on the loss of the buildings, the fire over the land and the damages to the trees, although he had never been on the property prior to the fire. He had obtained his knowledge of the prior condition from claimant and did not know whether it was habitable before the fire. Mr. Young further testified that had the land not had the fire, it would be worth approximately $8,000 without the buildings.

Lloyd Sitter who appeared as a witness for respondent, testified that the value of the land at the time of the hearing was between $55 and $100 per acre [$3,400 to $4,000],

Claimant states that: (1) "Fire is a dangerous element and one who sets it out must be prepared to take care of it and prevent its escaping and doing damage to others or be liable for the consequences. (Indiana I.&I.R.R. Co. v. Hawkins, 81 Ill.App. 570 (1898))” Claimant further states that "The measure of damages in a case where buildings are totally destroyed as well as injury to trees and vegetation due to fire is the general, universal rule, that is, the difference between the fair value of the premises immediately before and after the fire. Clark v. Public Service Co., 278 Ill. App. 426 (1934); Central National Bank & Trust Co. of Peoria v. Central Illinois Light Co., 212 NE 2d 489 (1966).”

The evidence supports Claimant’s contention that Respondent was negligent in failing to contain the fire it started in the Anna State dump and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the fire upon claimant’s property.

However, claimant has failed to prove that the fair market value of the property before the fire was in any way close to the $18,000 to $20,000 she claims. Indeed, claimant’s own affidavit stated that less than two years before the fire, the property, including the buildings, was worth no more than $2,700, and that the buildings were damaged and in very poor condition. No repairs had been made subsequent to that appraisal.

Claimant has presented no evidence, other than the estimate of one who had never seen the improvements before the fire, that the loss of the buildings in any way lessened the value of the property.

It would appear from the testimony of Appraiser Lowell Young, that the difference between the fair market value of the land before and after the fire was approximately $2,000. Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $2,000.


text:
    (No. 5621
    William M Kordsiemon and Associates, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 15, 1974.

    Orlikoff & Tierney, Attorney for Claimant.
    William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.