text:
    (No. 1124
    Claimant awarded $400.00.)
    William M. Rossell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 10, 1927.

    Fees & salaries — when award will he made. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in Blasi v. State, supra.

    Harry Smitz, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

William M. Eossell presents a claim against the State on account of a deficiency in salary, allotted to the chief inspector in the Division of Private .Employment Agencies, in the Department of Labor for deputy hire, said claimant being a deputy in said service. It appears that the General Assembly in making the appropriation for the salaries in question, did not take into consideration that the law enacted contains a provision as follows: “If the deputy inspector has served or hereafter serves more than one year, $100 shall be added to his salary for each year of service until a maximum salary of $3000 is reached,” and that no allowance for such increase in salary is made in the law.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

George B. Arnold, Director of Labor of the State of Illinois, has recommended that this deficiency be awarded to the employee.

We accordingly award to the claimant the sum of $400.00.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Leech

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 1125
    Claimant awarded $41.66.)
    Frank E. Arkuszewski, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 10, 1927.

    Fees & salaries — when award will he made. This ease is controlled by the decision of the court in Blasi v. State, supra.

    Harry Smitz, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

Frank E. Arkuszewski presents a claim against the State on account of a deficiency in salary, allotted to the chief inspector in the Division of Private Employment Agencies in' the Department of Labor for deputy hire, said claimant being a deputy in said service. It appears that the General Assembly in making the appropriation for the salaries in question, did not take into consideration that the law enacted contains a provision as follows: “If the deputy inspector has served or hereafter serves more than one year, $100 shall be added to his salary for each year of service until a maximum salary of $3,000 is reached,” and that no allowance for such increase in salary is made in the law.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

George B. Arnold, Director of Labor of the State of Illinois, has recommended that this deficiency be awarded to the employee.

We accordingly award to the claimant the sum of $41.66.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

text:
    (No. 948
    Claim denied.)
    E-Z Opener Bag Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Franchise tax — when court without jurisdiction to refund. Where the claimant has an adequate remedy at law in a court of general jurisdiction to recover the tax paid by mistake, the court will not take jurisdiction of his claim.
    McDavid & Monroe, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for a refund of franchise tax in excess of that which should have been paid and which was paid under a mistake of fact as contended by the claimant. It appears to the court that the essence of claimant’s contention arose through the fact that certain questions were not answered and certain other questions were improperly answered in an. annual report filed with the Secretary of State by claimant on February 17,1925. It would further appear to the court that ■ if the questions in said” report were fully and properly answered by the claimant that the error complained of would not have occurred. It would appear that a mistake cannot be properly chargeable to the Secretary of State in the view of the fact that the report did not disclose all that should be known according to claimant. It would seem that it is incumbent upon the claimant, a large corporation, to understand their requirements, or be properly and legally advised as to an important report of the character of the one in question.

The court has read carefully all the evidence and arguments in this case and are of the opinion that the statutes of the State of Illinois gave claimant at least 30 days after the payment of this money into the Secretary of State’s hands to discover the mistake, and if necessary to enforce the adjustment of the same through the court of general jurisdiction and it further appears to this court that if the claimant pursued the legal remedies otherwise prescribed that an adjustment and determination could have been made in the Secretary of State’s office.

It has been heretofore frequently announced by this court that where a claimant had a legal remedy and failed to follow same that this court would not take jurisdiction.

Therefore it is recommended by this court that said claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1034
    Claimant awarded $1,417.50.)
    W. T. Greig, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Military service — when award may he made. Although claimant may not be entitled to an award as a matter of law, yet where he is injured while in the line of his duty, the court may on ground of equity and good conscience allow him an award, and the award fixed according to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation act.
    Putting & Lindgren, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a proceeding by William T. Greig to recover an award for personal injuries received by him on August 23, 1925, at Camp Grant, Illinois, in the line of duty, under the direction of the commander-in-chief of the Illinois National Guard, in which he was an enlisted soldier in the 124th Field Artilley. The declaration filed by claimant alleges that on said date, the 124th Field Artillery of the Illinois National Guard, were holding mounting events, and the claimant was entered in one riding event; that during the running of this event the horse which claimant was riding became fractious and about one hundred yards after the start of the race' claimant discovered that he was riding with one stirrup off; that he tried to control the horse, but without any result, and that he was thrown to the ground and the horse stepped on his left ankle; that immediately after the accident Major W. J. Swift, a medical officer of the 124th Field Artillery of the Illinois National Guard attended claimant and had him removed to the St. Anthony’s Hospital at Rockford, Illinois; that Major W. J. Swift’s report and that of the medical board of the Illinois National Guard indicates that claimant received the injuries in the line of duty as an enlisted man in the Illinois National Guard, and a statement of Dr. J. G. Meyers of Springfield, Illinois, who examined claimant on February 21,1927, states that the -use of the foot and ankle has been reduced from 75% to 85%. Claimant testified that ever since the date of the injury this ankle has caused him much pain; that he went to Mayo Brothers at Rochester, Minnesota, for an examination of this injury, and to see if he could get some relief, from the pain which this injury causes him; that they were unable to do anything for him; that claimant is a single man, and at the time of his injuries his only source of income was from the Illinois National Guard; that he received about $140.00 per month and contributed to the support of his father, mother and sister, with whom he made his home.

The State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer to the declaration, which, as a matter of law, is sustained. Section 143, of Chapter 129, Article 16, of SmithHurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1925, provides that the Court of Claims shall act on and adjust compensation for officers or enlisted men of the National Guard who shall be injured, wounded or killed while performing his duty as an officer or enlisted man in pursuance of orders from the com-, mander-in-chief. While we do not concede any legal liability on the part of the State of Illinois, in equity and good conscience, we award claimant compensation which he would be entitled to under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois, as provided in Section lid, No. 145, Chapter 48, Smith-Hnrd Revised Statutes, 1925, basing claim on 75% permanent injury to use of foot, or $1,417.50.


text:
    (No. 1078
    Claimant awarded $1,501.50.)
    Dewey L. Daniels, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Military service — when award may he made. While the State may not be liable for injuries sustained by a member of the Illinois National Guard while on active duty, compensation may be awarded to him according to the provisions of the Workman’s Compensation act.
    Byron M. Merris, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

A declaration was filed by the claimant, Dewey L. Daniels, on August 31, 1926. In the declaration, claimant alleges that on and prior to September 12, 1922, he was a private in Company A, 130th Infantry, Illinois National Guard; that at that time and for some weeks prior thereto said company had been mobilized and called into active duty by the G-overnor of the State of Illinois to do riot and guard duty in Bloomington, Illinois, during the railroad strikes of the summer and fall of 1922; that he was on active duty with his company during such period; that on the date above mentioned, while on such duty, Sergeant M. L. Armentrout accidentally discharged his rifle, the bullet therefrom passing through the right forearm of claimant, between the ulna and radius and just below the elbow joint; that he was taken to the Brokaw Hospital at Bloomington, Illinois, and so remained until September 23, 1922, when his company was demobilized, and he was brought back to Decatur, Illinois, and taken to the Decatur and Macon County Hospital, where he remained until September 30,1922; that at the time of such accident he was on active duty with such company; that prior to that mobilization, he was employed by the A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company, of Decatur, Illinois; that he was employed on the loading gang; that his duties required him to lift sacks of starch, glucose, syrup and other corn products, manufactured in said plant, the sacks weighing from 100 to 280 pounds; that since his injury he has been unable to hold down any job or work that requires heavy lifting or continuous use of his arm; that he is right handed, and that such injury was to his right arm; that his occupation is that of laborer and requires the continual use of his arm in performing the duties of such an occupation; that at present and ever since such accident, when he lifts or performs other duties requiring the continuous use of his arm, it becomes numb and weak and he is unable to hold or grasp objects.

To the declaration, the tate of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained. . •

From the evidence, it appears that there is a 50% disability. Under Paragraph 13, Section 145, Chapter 48, SmithHurd’s Revised Statutes, 1925, page 1275, it is provided “for the loss of an arm or the permanent and complete loss of its use, 50% of the average weekly wage during 220 weeks.” This court has made a practice of allowing just claims,-basing compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Figuring a 50% disability of the use of the arm, claimant -is entitled to, and we award him, the sum of $1,501.50.


text:
    (No. 1084
    Claimant awarded $3,200.00.)
    Amos L. Lawrence, Administrator of the Estate of William Lawrence, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Governmental function — when State not liable. Hard roads. The State in constructing its hard road system exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees thereon while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. An award may be made to an injured employee of the State who is injured in the discharge of his duty, and compensation fixed under the provisions of the Workman’s Compensation act.
    Isaac K. Levy, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration filed by Amos L. Lawrence, administrator of the estate of William Lawrence, deceased, -on September 8, 1926, alleges that one William Lawrence, on July 27,1926, and prior thereto was engaged in the construction of a certain durable hard surfaced public road with State equipment, and by day labor on State Bond Issue Route 13, in the county of Jackson, in the State of Illinois, about five and one-half miles north of Murphysboro, Illinois, near a station on the Illinois Central Railroad called Finney, employed by the State of Illinois, by its Department of Public Works and Buildings, and that on said date and for a long time prior thereto the said State of Illinois was possessed of and using and operating an automobile truck equipped with a dump body known as Truck No. 7, in doing the said road work; that said William Lawrence was employed by the defendant, under said Department of Public Works and Buildings, as driver of said truck and was on said date driving the truck in doing road work; that the truck and steering gear, brakes and front axle of '•¡aid truck were defective, unsafe and out of repair, which was known by defendant, or could have been known by it by the exercise of due and ordinary care, and that on account of the unsafe condition of the truck, it was unsafe and dangerous to the driver and to the employees of the State of Illinois, engaged in said road work; that said William Lawrence, while driving said truck, and while in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety, the truck on account of its defective condition, turned over and threw William Lawrence upon the ground, and that he was thereby then and there killed; that said William Lawrence, at the time of his death, was 22 years of age, was unmarried, and left surviving him Amos L. Lawrence, his father; Lucy Lawrence, his mother; Edith Leslie, his sister; Earl Lawrence, his brother; Ellen Boston, his sister; Joseph Lawrence, his brother; Thelma Tobinson, his sister; Kenneth Lawrence, his brother, and Mary Law-, rence, his sister, and next of kin, all of whom are living; that Joseph Lawrence is of the age of 18 years, and that Kenneth Lawrence is of the age of 11 years and that Mary Lawrence is of the age of 8 years; that William Lawrence in his lifetime contributed to the support of his father, mother and minor brothers and sister; that said William Lawrence received as wages the sum of $4.00 per day, for his services as truck driver, and that he earned an average wage of $4.00 per day during the year preceding his death. It appears that Amos L. Lawrence, father of the deceased, was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased. It is stipulated that 200 working days should be used for the basis of the year’s work, in accordance with Item (e) of Paragraph 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, in order to determine the amount due claimant.

A demurrer was filed to the declaration by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

While we do not concede any liability on the part of the State on account of injuries to persons employed by any department of the State, in equity and good conscience, we award to claimant in this case the compensation provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois, or $3,200.00.


author: Mr. Justice Thomas

text:
    (No. 1085
    Claimant awarded $1,300.00.)
    Frank McInturff, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Governmental function — Elgin State Hospital. When State not liable for injury to employee. The State in conducting its State hospital exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees therein while in the discharge of their duty.
    Assumption of risk — when employee assumes risk. An attendant at the State Hospital for the Insane -assumes all the risk or hazards incident to such employment.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. Where claimant is employed in a hazardous employment the court may as a matter of social justice and equity recommend an award.
    Thomas A. Murphy, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed as an attendant at the Elgin State Hospital at Elgin. On July 20, 1924, while on duty, he was attacked by a patient and his left leg broken above the knee. A physician at the hospital reduced the fracture and gave him all necessary medical attention. He remained at the hospital from the time he was injured until April 12, 1925, during which time he received all necessary nursing and medical attention. On July 2, 1925, he again went to work at the hospital, and so far as the record discloses was still employed there when the evidence in the case was taken. As a result of the injury, his left leg is two inches shorter than the other one. Claimant’s salary was $45.00 per month and his board and room furnished. He was paid his salary up to August 20, 1924, and was given his room and board up to April 12, 1925, which was valued at $24.00 per month. He was not required to pay any hospital bills, nurse bills, medical bills, board of lodging from the time of his injury to April 12,1925, all these having been furnished by the State.

The claim is filed on the theory that the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies to the State in its conduct of the Elgin State Hospital, and claimant asks that his compensation be fixed by this court under the provisions of that act.

We cannot agree with claimant that his claim comes under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Elgin State Hospital does not come within any of the classes mentioned in Section 3 of that act. This court has repeatedly held that the State, in conducting State charitable institutions, is exercising a governmental function and is not liable for injuries received by employees of such institutions.

In accepting employment as an attendant at the hospital claimant assumed all the risks and hazards of such employment, and there is no liability on the part of the State to pay him for the injuries received or for loss of time on account of them.

The demurrer of the State will be sustained, the- claim rejected and the cause dismissed.

If the legislature sees fit to make an appropriation for the benefit of claimant, as' a matter of social justice, we would recommend that it appropriate not to exceed the sum of $1,300.00 for that purpose.


text:
    (No. 1094
    Claimant awarded $4,100.00.)
    William L. Fischer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Workmen’s compensation act — award may he made to State employee under. Where an employee of the State sustains an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, compensation may be awarded to him under the provisions of- the Workmen’s Compensation act.
    Oscar J. Putting, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears, from claimant’s declaration-that on. or about the 19th day of October, A. D. 1925, he was working for the State of Illinois as a plumber and steam-fitter’s helper on a section of the service tunnel at the Elgin State Hospital; that at the time in question he was ordered by the foreman, an employee of the State of Illinois, to inspect a six inch high pressure steam pipe line which had been made in a tunnel. The tunnel walls were complete and while claimant, together with others, was in the tunnel endeavoring to straighten the pipes, the walls caved in and the claimant was crushed by the falling of cement blocks and pipes. He was painfully and seriously injured, his pelvis having been broken and- fractured in six places. The claimant was a man of about 33 years of age and in good health at the time of the accident, and it is further alleged that the claimant is suffering with-a permanent deformity of the pelvis with permanent injury to his nervous system and is permanently disabled from following his occupation as a plumber and steam-fitter’s helper and will continue so to be.

A stipulation was filed substantially agreeing with the facts alleged and further showing that claimant has a wife and a child 5 years of age who are depending upon him as their sole means of support and at the time of the accident he was receiving $6.00 per day. It is further stipulated that the said William L. Fischer is permanently injured and physically incapacitated to do any physical labor of any kind for the rest of his life.

It therefore appears to the court that following the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which should be followed in view of the facts stipulated and shown, the claimant should have allowance measured by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Therefore it is considered by the court and recommended that the claimant be allowed the sum of $4,100.00.


text:
    (No. 1095
    Claimant awarded $140.00.)
    The Peter Fox Sons Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

      Contract — State liable for supplies furnished. The State is liable for supplies furnished by claimant to its State institution.
    The Peter Fox Sons Co., for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court :

It appears that claimant furnished the Chicago State Hospital at Dunning, Illinois, upon order of those in authority, 500 pounds of chicken invoiced at 28 cents per pound, and it further appearing that the reason the bill was not paid in the regular course was owing to the fact that claimant failed to present his bill before the lapse of the fund out of which it could have been paid. It further appears that the Director of the Department of Public Welfare states that it is a just claim.

Therefore it appears to this court that this claim should be allowed and it is recommended by the court that the claimant be awarded the sum of $140.00.


text:
    (No. 1096
    Claimant awarded $4,350.00.)
    Etta Klein, et al., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Governmental function — when State not liable. The State in conducting its State penitentiary exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. Although no legal liability exists against the State, yet where its employee is injured while in the discharge of his duty, an award may be made to him, as a matter of social justice and equity.
    Martin & Martin, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a case arising out of the killing of Peter 1ST. Klein, deputy warden of Joliet penitentiary, by inmates thereof, on May 5,1926. The declaration'filed by claimants on November 17, 1926, seeks a recovery against the State by.the widow and two minor children of Peter N. Klein, deceased, who came to his death on May 5, 1926, in the Solitary building at the new penitentiary as a result of injuries received at the hands of seven convicts, Torrez, Bizo, Shader, Price, Stalensky, Boa and Duchowski, inmates of the new penitentiary, while the decedent, who was an employee of the State, was engaged in the performance of his duties as deputy warden of said penitentiary. The declaration further sets forth that decedent was deputy warden for the period from February 4, 1924, to May 5,1926, the date of his death; that under the directions of the warden, John L. Whitman, during said time he was in charge of the new penitentiary and performing many of the duties of the warden therein; that while engaged in the duty of interviewing convicts who had complaints to make, he was assaulted and killed, without any excuse or justification, by the seven convicts above mentioned, in a most cruel and brutal manner, while he was in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety; that decedent left him surviving Etta Klein, his widow, and Donald Klein, aged 11 years on June 19, 1926, and Chelsea Klein, aged 7 years on November 20, 1925; that he left no property of any value other than his hpusehold furniture and an automobile; that his widow and children have no other property, and that his widow has no means of earning a livelihood except by her manual labor; that decedent at his death was in good health, of the age of 47 years, and had been earning $208.33 per month, and in addition thereto was furnished with living quarters and food for himself and his family.

To the declaration, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

Although there is no legal liability where a State employee is injured while in the performance of his duty, in a case of this kind, we feel that in equity and good conscience the widow and minor children should receive some compensation on account of the loss of the husband and father, and we accord- . ingly award the maximum amount provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois, or the sum of $4,350.00.


text:
    (No. 1100
    Claimant awarded $500.00.)
    Peter W. Kehlenbach, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Governmental function — when State not liable. The State in conducting its State penitentiary at Statesville, exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees therein while in the discharge of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. An award may be made to an employee who is injured while in the employment of the State, and in the discharge of his duty, as a matter of social justice and equity.
    Lagger & Blatt, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant in this case, Peter W. Kehlenbach, sets out in his declaration that he is and has been for a number of years last past, a resident citizen of the county of Will and State of Illinois; that on January 19, 1926, and for some time prior thereto, he was employed as a guard or keeper at the Illinois State Penitentiary at Statesville, and on said day was keeper of one of the cell houses at said penitentiary; that on said day and date a convict known as No. 8836 Coughington, confined in the south cell house, suddenly and without warning attacked one J. B. Babcock, a guard in said cell house; that claimant went to the assistance of said J. B. Babcock, and he was then attacked by said Coughington and beaten about the body with a cane which the convict had seized, and cut about the body with a knife which the convict held, inflicting, among other' injuries, a cut in his abdomen, about seven inches long, and a cut on the throat; that he was otherwise beaten, bruised and injured by the convict and as a result thereof he was seriously and permanently injured. To the declaration, the State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

It appears from the testimony of Dr. Fletcher, State physician, who had the care of the claimant, that he is not permanently disabled, and that his injuries are entirely cured. He is working as guard at the penitentiary again, and there is nothing to indicate that he does not receive the same remuneration as he did prior to his injury. However, claimant testifies that he is not able to do any heavy lifting, on account of the injury to his abdomen, and that it has become, necessary for him to wear glasses, on account of injury sustained to his left eye; that he was a machinist prior to entering into the service of the State of Illinois, and that it would be impossible now for him to do the work he was formerly accustomed to perform. While we do not concede any legal liability on the part of the State of Illinois, we feel that, as a matter of social justice and equity, this claimant who was unjustifiably attacked while performing his duties, and as a result thereof sustained serious, probably permanent, injuries, is entitled to some compensation, and we award him the sum of $500.00.


text:
    (No. 1101
    Claimant awarded $950.00.)
    G. W. Bush, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Social justice and equity — when aioard made under rule. While the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty, yet where claimant is engaged in a hazardous employment, and is permanently injured, the court will recommend an allowance to him for the injuries sustained.
    Lagger & Blatt, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

■ It appears that claimant was employed as a keeper at the Illinois State Penitentiary at Statesville, Illinois, on November 7, 1925, and for some time prior thereto; that while he was engaged in the duties of keeper at one of the cell houses at said penitentiary on said date and about 5:30 o’clock of said day, he was suddenly and unexpectedly attacked by a number of convicts in said cell house and thrown and knocked down a stairway and was beaten and bruised by the convicts; that his back became severely wrenched and the ligaments of his back torn and lacerated. From the abstract of the evidence on page 5, Dr. Fletcher, a witness who was called on behalf of claimant, testified in part as follows: “I treated him in November, 1925, for injuries received at the Statesville penitentiary. Bush was severely beaten by a number of convicts, and while he had no broken bones, yet there was discoloration over most of the entire body. The ligaments of his back were severely torn and for many months since I have seen and attended Mr. Bush for this trouble. The ligaments that were torn are in the lumbar region of the back, the small of the back. In my opinion, the injury resulting from this attack, so far as neuritis and pain is concerned, I am inclined to think is permanent. I doubt very much about Mr. Bush ever becoming entirely normal on account of more or less pains at intervals, which will lessen his efficiency. I cannot state the degree of inefficiency that will result in the use of his back, but there will be a slight degree of inefficiency due to the pain he will suffer from time to time.” The evidence further discloses that claimant is a man 49 years old, married and has four children. He received $125.00 per month and maintenance. It also appears by the eyidence that prior to the time he took up his duties as guard at the penitentiary, he had followed the carpenter trade and was able to earn from $3.50 to $5.00 per day.

The claimant, in his declaration, alleges his damage to be $2,500.00, bue the records fail to disclose any definite claim for an amount to be admeasured by the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise. The Attorney General comes and defends and states that claimant should receive some award for his injury sustained.

It is the opinion of this court that the claimant was engaged in a hazardous undertaking and that he was severely and painfully injured, and that from all the evidence it appears that claimant will be more or less permanently disabled by reason of these injuries and that there should be an allow-" anee made to recompense insofar as it is within the proper power of the defendant.

It is therefore considered, and it is recommended by this court, that the claimant be allowed the sum of $950.00.


text:
    (No. 1102
    Claim denied.)
    Charles Baxter, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Governmental function — State not liable for injuries sustained by its employees. The State in conducting the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty.
    Lagger & Blatt, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Charles Baxter, has filed a claim on account of injuries which he received on September 30, 1926, when he was employed as a guard or keeper at the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, on that day he being in charge of what is known as the fiber shop, in which were working a large number of convicts, when he was struck by a convict by the name of Stanley Morowski and three or four other convicts, with clubs and hammers and other weapons and was beaten about the head and body, including an injury to the bone and tissue of the left hand; that as a result thereof he was unable to work until on or about October 20, 1926, and underwent great pain and suffering, and claims that the use of his left hand was, as a result thereof, permanently impaired and that he received other permanent injuries.

To the declaration, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

The evidence of Dr. Fletcher, attending physician, indicates that there are no permanent injuries. Claimant does not make any demand for loss of time or for doctor bills, and the presumption is that he was paid his regular salary while employed at the institution and given medical attention.

In view of these facts, it is our opinion that he is not entitled to any damages for the injuries as set forth in his petition.


text:
    (No. 1103
    Claimant awarded $300.00.)
    William Barrowman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Social justice and equity — when award may he made to State employee under rule of. Where claimant, an employee of the State is engaged in a hazardous employment, and is injured while in the discharge of his duty, the court may enter an award to him for the injury sustained.
    Lagger & Blatt, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant alleges that he has .been employed at the old penitentiary at Joliet since February 18,1923, and was acting deputy warden on October 29, 1926, on which date he was injured in the course of his employment in the manner following, according to his statement:

On the morning of that day he superintended the removal of thirty-one prisoners from the old to the new penitentiary, they being moved in a Mack truck driven by one of the convicts. The petitioner, as such deputy warden, was following the truck to prevent the escape of any prisoners, he riding in and on a trailing car, a part of the time riding on the running board of the trailer, in which there were two officers. The road to the new penitentiary goes north on Collins street to Sixteenth street in Lockport, which is a straight road direct to the new penitentiary. On the road west it was necessary to climb a steep hill. While ascending the hill it became necessary for the driver of the truck to change into low gear.. The gears refused to mesh and the emergency brake did not hold, so that the truck began to back down the hill towards the trailing car, and when about twenty feet from the bottom of the incline turned over on its side. The trailer, being a Paige car, also backed down, but in so doing backed out against a fence at the side of the road. The claimant was standing on the running board and the rear door on the right hand side of the car slammed onto his hand, breaking the ring finger of the right hand and pulling off the nail. The right arm below the elbow was also hurt in the muscles and tendons injured at the shoulder. It is not contended by claimant that this is a claim that could be measured by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and from the testimony it does not appear that the injuries sustained will be continuing, and it is assumed by the court that his compensation' or salary has been paid by the defendant continuously as well as such medical aid as might be required. The evidence, however, discloses that a suit of clothes valued at about $60.00 was ruined on ancount of the accident, and that, of course, would be a loss to the claimant. It also appears that claimant suffered considerable pain and inconvenience.

It appears to the court that an allowance in this case cannot be considered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and it would not appear that there was any permanent injury. However, it has been the practice of this court to consider claims of this type as a matter of equity and social justice, and in view of the fact that claimant was engaged in a hazardous occupation for the benefit of the defendant, and it ap- ' peared that he had done his duty faithfully and that he has suffered considerable pain and inconvenience, it is the judgment of the court that a limited award should be considered.

The court therefore recommends that claimant be awarded the sum of $300.00.


text:
    (No. 1104
    Claim denied.)
    William R. Reichert, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Governmental function — State not liable for injuries sustained by its employees. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in case of Baxter v. State, supra,

    Lagger & Blatt, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant in this case filed his declaration on December 9, 1926, and asks an award on account of injuries sustained by him on April 16, 1926, he, being superintendent of the State Honor Farm at Statesville, stopped a team of runaway horses, driven by a convict. The horses were hitched to a hay rack, picking up loose boards about the yard near the office. The horses becoming frightened and with no one . controlling them ran away and headed south towards the barn. Mr. Reichert saw the runaway and attempting to stop the team was pinned between the barn and the hay rack. Various other employees and inmates,- seeing the accident, hurried up and released Mr. Reichert, who was then taken to the hospital. His injuries consisted of a fracture of the right shoulder, a laceration of the muscles and ligaments of that shoulder; two ribs on the right side were fractured, and his right arm has become somewhat disabled.

To the declaration filed, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

It appears to us that the claimant in this case unnecessarily placed himself in a position of danger. It does not appear that he has any permanent injuries, and there is no claim presented for loss of time or for medical services, so it is presumed that these have been compensated for, consequently, no award is made.


text:
    (No. 1107
    Claimant awarded $17,350.75.)
    Richard E. Schmidt and Hugh M. G. Garden, Partners, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

      Contract — when State liable. Where a contract has been entered into between claimant and the State, for architectural services in the construction of its State building, and the appropriation for the construction of the building lapses before the amount due claimant under the contract is determined: Held. The State is liable for the balance due claimant under the contract.
    Willard L. King, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimants are architects and reside in the city of Chicago. On the 19th day of April, 1920, they entered into a contract with the State of Illinois to perform the necessary architectural services in the construction of the Research and Educational Hospital in Cook county. For these services they were to receive 4% of the contract price of the cost of the buildings.

It is agreed between counsel for claimants and the Attorney General that the total contracts for the buildings aggregated the sum of $2,189,303.35, upon which claimants were entitled to a fee of 4% amounting to $87,572.13; that payments have been made to claimants aggregating the sum of $70,221.38, leaving a balance due them of $17,350.75.

The appropriation for the construction of the buildings having lapsed before the total amount due claimants could be determined it became necessary for them to present their claim for the balance due them to this court for adjudication.

The Attorney General admits that claimants have proven their contract and performed the services under it, and there appears to be no reason why the amount due them should not be allowed.

The court therefore awards to claimants the sum of $17,350.75..


text:
    (No. 1133
    Claimant awarded $666.67.)
    Walter F. Rohm, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Fees & salaries — when claimant entitled to award. Where the salary of a State employee is fixed by law, and the legislature appropriates a sum of money insufficient to pay the same, he is entitled to an award of the difference between the amount fixed by law and the appropriation.
    Angerstein & Schneider, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is admitted by the State that claimant is secretary of the Industrial Commission of Illinois, that he was duly appointed secretary May 1, 1923, and has continuously acted and fulfilled the duties of the office of secretary of the commission ever since his appointment; that up to October 31, 1924, his salary was paid at the rate of $5,000.00 per year, and since that date at the rate of $4,000.00 per year.

Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that the salary of the secretary of the commission shall be $5,000.00 per year.

No evidence was taken in this case. The declaration sets out the facts, and is verified by claimant. It appears that the legislature only appropriated $4,000.00 per year for the payment of the salary of claimant, which left a deficit of $666.67 on the 30th day of June, 1925, due claimant. It is for this deficit this claim is filed.

The law having fixed claimant’s salary at $5,000.00 per year, it is the duty of the legislature to have made an appropriation sufficient to pay it. Not having done so, and claimant not having been paid the full amount of salary due him, it is the duty of this court to award him the amount of such deficiency.

The claimant is therefore awarded the sum of $666.67.


text:
    (No. 1135
    Claimant awarded $829.50.)
    Ira Boucher, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.
    Workmen’s compensation act — award may he made under to State employee. Where an employee of the State sustains an injury while in the performance of his duty, an award may be made to compensate him under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation act.
    Isaac K. Levy, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered .the opinion of the court:

The claimant was regularly employed by the State of Illinois in the Department of Public Works and Public Buildings, Division of Highways, as a truck driver and had been so employed since October 8, 1926, to the 3rd day of November, 1926. The claimant, as such truck driver on said day, November 3, 1926, was hauling material from the plant to a concrete mixer, and in the course of his employment, his truck backed off the paved roadway and turned over, caught claimant between truck and ground, fracturing and otherwise injuring his right wrist.

It appears from the evidence-in the case, which is uncontradicted and admitted by the Attorney General as the facts, that the cause of said action that claimant was totally incapacitated for 32 weeks, which,- according to his wages and figured under the Workmen’s .Compensation Act, would be $320.00, and that also claimant is entitled to one-fourth of 165 weeks at $10.00 per week for permanent loss of the usé of claimant’s right hand, which amounts to $412.50, and that medical and hospital services would amount to $97.00, making a total claim of $829.50. '

It is therefore recommended by the court that the claimant be awarded the sum of $829.50.


text:
    (No. 1144
    Claimant awarded $3,750.00.)
    John Edgar Blakeman, Administrator, of the Estate of Jesse Blakeman, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees in the performance of their duty.
    Equity and good conscience — award may be made. An award may be made, under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to an employee who is injured while in the performance of his duty.
    Oscar J. Putting and Walter E. Lindgren, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoef, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court :

This claim comes before the Court of Claims on a declaration filed by John Edgar Blakeman, administrator of the estate of Jesse Blakeman, deceased, filed February 4, 1927, in which it is alleged that Jesse Blakeman, deceased, was working for the State of Illinois, as a plumber and steamfitter’s helper, on a section of the service tunnel at the Elgin State Hospital at Elgin, Illinois, at the time in question said Jesse Blakeman, together with another workman being ordered by the foreman, an employee of the State of Illinois, to inspect a six-inch high pressure steam pipe line which had been made up in the tunnel prior to the placing of a concrete tunnel top. The tunnel walls were complete, and the cross pipes at intervals of ten feet for supporting pipe lines were all in; and the six-inch high pressure pipe was suspended in place and bolted up into straight runs. This section contained three lengths of six-inch pipes bolted together. The pipe lengths averaged twenty feet in length and 400 pounds in weight, so that this pipe line represented about 1200 pounds of weight suspended from pipe hangers. Jesse Blakeman, deceased, together with another workman were endeavoring to straighten the pipes when, without any warning and while working in said tunnel, the cement walls caved in and completely covered and crushed J esse Blakeman and his fellow worker. Other workmen about the premises heard the call for help, and, after great difficulty, the deceased and his fellow employee were extricated from the debris by men who responded to the call for help. Deceased was immediately removed to the Elgin State Hospital for medical attention. However, the injuries which he received were so serious and fatal that he died thirty minutes later as a result thereof, the date of the injury and death being October 19, 1925. Jesse Blakeman, deceased, at the time of his death was a minor, 20 years of age, and left surviving him his father, John Edgar Blakeman; his mother, Emma Mabel Blakeman; his sisters, Esther Gee, Verna Hays and Adeline Blakeman, and his brothers, Leonard Blakeman and John Blakeman, Jr. He not only turned in a large share of his earnings to his father and mother, but he also paid family bills, such as grocery and meat bills. The deceased received $36.00 per week as wages from the State of Illinois up to the time of his death.

To the declaration, the State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained. In equity and good conscience, we award claimant the sum of $3,750.00, being the amount which is provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois for a claim of this nature.


text:
    (No. 1153
    Claimant awarded $172.00.)
    Dr. J. G. Meyer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    Military service — when award may he made. There being no dispute as to the facts and the law in this case the court enters an award in favor of claimant for the amount of his claim.
    William J. Butler, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant is and was a regularly licensed physician practicing the profession in the city of Springfield, Illinois, on December 10, 1924, to March 31, 1925. And it further appears that Private Lewis J. Bourland while on regular and order duty, a member of Company C, 130th Infantry, Illinois National Guard, became ill with mumps and the grippe and did receive treatment from said claimant as a physician between said dates and that the amount claimed by said claimant for suck treatment is $172.00. It further appears that C. E. Black, Adjutant General, addressed a letter to the Attorney General stating “that the board found that the disability of Private Bourland was incurred in line of duty and recommended that his medical treatment be paid and that claimant was the attending physician and that his bill for such services in the sum of $172.00 has not been paid by the Military and Naval Department.”

. It appears to the court that said claim is just and recommended as aforesaid that it should be allowed. This court recommends that said claim be awarded in the sum of $172.00.


text:
    (No. 1156
    Claimant awarded $4,000.00.)
    Chicago Title & Trust Company, Receiver for The Bauer Cab Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    License fees — when may he refunded. Claimant in this case made application to the Secretary of State for 500 license plates for its taxi cabs, and before the plates were used a receiver was appointed for the company, and the plates were never used but remained in original packages, and were returned to the Secretary of State in time to be reissued by the State to other taxi cab owners and to collect fees thereon: Held. Claimant entitled to a refund of the license fee for the plates returned.
    Winston, Straws & Shaw, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim based upon the fact that the Bauer Motor Cab Company made application on the 29th day of November, 1926, for the issuance' of five hundred licenses for its taxi cabs and motor vehicles and that the said Bauer Cab Company paid to the Secretary of State of Illinois the sum of $4,000.00 for such licenses, which were subsequently issued to the said Bauer Cab Company by the said Secretary of State. It further appears that said license plates and numbers so issued by the Secretary of State were not received by the Bauer Cab Company until the 18th day of December, 1926; that said Bauer Cab Company went into the hands of a receiver and that claimant was appointed receiver and that said license plates were not installed, or were not even displayed on any of the said cabs or motor vehicles, but that all of said license plates remained in the stock rooms of the Bauer Cab Company in the original - package until the time this claimant took possession of such assets with the exception of seven plates; that claimant has returned and delivered to the Secretary of State all of the said licenses, or license plates so issued to the Bauer Cab Company with the exception of the said seven plates. It is further alleged that the license plates and numbers so returned to the Secretary of State were afterwards issued by said Secretary of State on the taxi cabs and other motor vehicles and the said Secretary of State has received the fees as prescribed by law. The Secretary of State in a letter to the Attorney General makes the following statement relative to the license plates in question, “This claim has been carefully checked and it is found that the statements therein are true and that five hundred (500) licenses for 1927 -were issued to the Bauer Cab Company numbered from 296,100 to 296,599. You will note there is an error in their declaration in stating plates were numbered from 296,100 to 296,499. The fee paid this office for these 500 licenses was $4,000.00 and it is recommended that the claim be allowed.” .

In view of the above and in view of the fact that the Bauer Cab Company or the receiver for said company received no benefit from the licenses or plates and that the plates were returned in proper time so that the Secretary of State could re-issue them together with the licenses for other cabs and collect the fees which the State of Illinois now has and enjoys, it appears to the court that the fees in question should be returned.

Therefore it is recommended that the claimant be awarded the sum of $4,000.00.


text:
    (No. 1157
    Claimant awarded $486.25.)
    Egyptian Transportation System, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1927.

    License fee — when refund may he made. When a mistake is made in computing the weight of motor vehicles upon which the tax is assessed, and the tax is paid, claimant is entitled to a refund of the excess tax paid.
    E. M. Spiller, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, the Egyptian Transportation System, a corporation, of Marion, Illinois, filed a declaration, in which they allege that for a period long preceding the dates of all matters hereinafter stated they were a corporation, created, organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Illinois, engaged in the business of transporting passengers by busses along and over certain public highways in the State of Illinois; that in accordance with Section 9a of the Motor Vehicle Law of the State of Illinois for the year 1926, said company, on July 24, 1926, paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois the sum of $2,584.00, and on July 30, 1926, the sum of $12.70, making a total payment of $2,596.70; that in computing the weights of the busses owned and operated by said transportation company a mistake was made therein, and as a result of said error an excess tax in the sum of $486.25 was paid, and that there is due claimant said sum of $486.25. A demurrer was filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

A letter from the Secretary of State and recommendation from the Attorney .General indicate that claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for this sum of money, and we accordingly award claifuant the sum of $486.25.


text:
    (No. 1037
    Claimant awarded $395.97.)
    W. G. Sutton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

    Freight charges — liability of State to reimburse. There being no dispute as to the facts and law in this case the court enters an award to claimant to reimburse him for freight charges paid by him on coal furnished at request of an authorized department of the State.
    Ernest J. Henderson, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the .opinion of the court:

The claimant, who is the owner of a coal mine at Minonk, Illinois, on the 10th day of April, 1923, filed a bid with the Department of Public Works and Buildings, in the Division of Purchases and Supplies, of Springfield, Illinois,' to furnish 15,000 tons of screenings 1%" at the mine at Minonk, Illinois. His bid was $2.00 per ton F. O. B. mine. That before submitting his bid he called the agent of the Illinois Central Railroad Company at Minonk, and also at Pontiac, Illinois, asking' for the freight rate from Minonk on coal in carload lots delivered at the institution, and was informed at both places that it would be $1.04 per ton, and upon this information given him, he submitted his bid, showing that the freight rate would be $1.04 per ton, and upon his bid of $2.00 per ton F. O. B. mine he was given the contract to furnish 15,000 tons of screening iy2", to be shipped to the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac. The claimant shipped the coal as directed to the Illinois State Reformatory, routing the same over the Illinois Central Railroad, and in care of the C. & A. Railroad Co., for delivery at the institution, and that he paid the freight rate of $1.04 per ton to the Illinois Central Railroad Company, at Minonk, and inclosed the same in the statement to the Department of Public Works and- Buildings, together with his bill for the coal, and was paid the sum of $3.04 per ton. That about two years afterwards the Illinois Central Railroad Company demanded of claimant the further sum of $395.97 for an undercharge. The rate of $1.04 paid to the Illinois, Central Railroad Company was the rate from Minonk to Pontiac, and that rate did not include the rate of the C. & A. Railroad Company’s rate of .67 cents per ton less $9.00 per car which was' included in the Illinois Central Railroad Company charge. The Illinois Central Railroad Company entered suit against the claimant for the undercharge of $395.97, and the claimant made an investigation and found that the rate of $1.04 did not include the C, & A. Railroad rate, and he settled the claim by paying the sum of $395.97 on the 30th day of January, 1926, to the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and files this claim to be reimbursed.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the State, first filed a general and special demurrer to the declaration, but after-wards filed a statement, including the copy of a letter from the director of the Department of Public Welfare, stating that the facts as set forth in the claimant’s declaration had been investigated and found the same to be true and that the claim was just.

As it is clear, from the sworn declaration, that the claimant had paid out the sum of $395.97 and that the State has been benefited to that amount, the demurrer will be overruled and claimant is allowed an award for that amount.


text:
    (No. 1046
    Claimant awarded $411.95.)
    Edgar C. Guppy, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable for injuries sustained by its employees. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its' employees while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. Although the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees in the discharge of their duty, the court may enter an award in his favor as a matter of social justice and equity.
    Scholes, O’Connor & Dougherty, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the Court of Claims on a declaration filed by Edgar C. Guppy, claimant, on account of personal injuries sustained on January 13, 1925, when he was in the employ of the State of Illinois in the capacity of a truck driver, attached to the Peoria State Hospital for the Insane at Bartonville, Illinois; that at the time of the injury he was in such employment and working under the orders and directions of the chief engineer of said Peoria State hospital, who was also the supervisor of the transportation facilities of said institution; that he was repairing, or ■attempting to repair, the truck which he had been driving; that in order to do such . repairing it was necessary to drive a nail in one of the staves of said truck, and while in the act of driving said nail, the nail flew off and struck claimant in the left eye, piercing the eyeball ;- that because of said injury the sight of the left eye has been greatly impaired; • that necessary hospital and doctor bills incurred in the treatment of said injury amounted to the sum of $136.95, There is a discrepancy in the testimony of two physicians as to the percentage of loss of sight to the said left eye, one doctor testifying -that there is a 30% loss, and another that there is an 80% loss. The testimony shows that claimant was earning $45.00 per month and his board and room.

"While there is no legal liability on the part of the State to compensate claimant on account of the injury in question, we believe that equity will be done by rendering an award to claimant, and we accordingly- do award claimant the sum of $136.95, necessary hospital and doctor bills, and the further sum of $275.00, figuring a 50% loss of sight to the left eye, and making the award under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois, total award, $411.95.


text:
    (No. 1075
    Claimant awarded $1,066.50.)
    Claude G. Van Hoorbeke, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

    Workmen’s compensation act — award made to State employee under. Where an employee of the State is engaged in-an extra hazardous employment and is' injured in the course of his employment compensation will be awarded to him for such injury sustained according to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

      Highways — when a structure within meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Where in the construction or repair of the State hard road dangerous machinery is used in the repair or construction of the road, and claimant is injured in the course of his employment by the use of such machinery, such a highway is “a structure” within the meaning of the Workman’s Compensation Act.
    Roger H. Clark, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

On October 14, 1924, claimant was employed by the State as a laborer in the maintence department of the Division of Highways. His duties consisted of patrolling the road, keeping up the shoulders, asphalting cracks in the pavement and assisting in making such repairs as were necessary. On March 26, 1926, while engaged in putting a “patch” in the pavement of State Route No. 7 near Seneca the thumb of his right hand was caught in the machinery of a concrete mixer and so bruised and lacerated as to require its amputation. He was immediately taken to a hospital at Ottawa, where he was given proper surgical attention, his thumb being amputated at the second joint. For these hospital and surgical services he paid $41.50. He was not able to do any work from the date of his injury till June 28, 1926, a period of 13 weeks. At. the time of the injury his weekly wage was $27.00.

In his declaration claimant bases his claim for compensation on the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Attorney General has filed a general and special demurrer to the declaration. We think the declaration shows a just claim against the State for part of the compensation claimed, and the demurrer will be overruled and the cause heard as if a general traverse of the declaration had been filed.

In Ms declaration claimant asks $135.00 for temporary total incapacity, $810.00 for the loss of his thumb, $2,000.00 for .disfigurement of his hand, $41.50 paid out for medical and hospital services and $1,400.00 for delay in payment of the foregoing sums, making the total sum of $4,386.50 for which compensation is asked.

Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended in 1917, recites that “the provisions of ttMs act hereinafter following shall apply automatically and without election to the State * * * and to all employers and their employees, engaged in any department of the following enterprises or businesses which are declared to be extra hazardous, namely: 1. The erection, maintaining, removing, remodeling, altering or demolishing of any structure, except as provided in sub-paragraph 8 of this section. 2. Construction, excavating or electrical work, except as provided in sub-paragraph 8 of this section.” Section 5 of the same act, as amended in 1917, recites that “the term ‘employee’ as used in this act, shall be construed to mean: First — Every person in the service of the State * * * under appointment or contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written”, etc. Section 6 of the act of 1917 creating the Court of Claims and prescribing^ its powers and duties provides: “The Court of Claims shall have power: * # * 6. To hear and determine the liability of the State for accidental injuries or death suffered in the course of employment by any employee of the State, such determination to be made in accordance with the rules prescribed in the act commonly called the ‘Workmen’s Compensation Act,’ the Industrial Commission being hereby relieved of any duty "relative thereto”. It is manifest from these provisions of the statute that the legislature intended all employees of the State who are injured while engaged in any of the enterprises or businesses declared by the Workmen’s Compensation Act to be extra hazardous, and whose injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment, should be paid the compensation provided in that act for such injury, and that the Court of Claims should have jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant is entitled to such compensation and if so the amount he should be allowed.

Claimant was injured while engaged in repairing one of the paved State highways, and his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. We think there can be no doubt but that such a highway is a “ structure ’ ’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, especially when its construction or repair necessitates the use of such dangerous machinery as was being used at the time claimant was injured. It follows from these conclusions that claimant is entitled to receive such compensation as the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides shall be paid for the injury he received. Section 8. of that act provides the employer shall provide the necessary medical and surgical services and pay 50% of the weekly earnings of the employee for the period of temporary total incapacity, but not less than $7.50 per week nor more than $14.00 per week. It also provides that in addition to compensation for temporary total incapacity the employer shall pay for the loss of a thumb 50% of the average weekly wage during sixty-six weeks. The evidence shows that claimant was totally incapacitated for work 13 weeks and that his weekly wage was $27.00. He is therefore entitled to receive $175.50 for such temporary total incapacity and, in addition thereto, $891.00 for the loss of his thumb, making the total amount of compensation to which he is entitled $1,066.50. We do not think he is entitled to receive the $41.50 expended for surgical and hospital services as the evidence shows that the State paid him $54.00 which was more than sufficient to reimburse him for that expense, and which in effect was a compliance with the provision requiring the employer to furnish necessary medical and surgical services. Neither is he entitled to the $2,000.00 claimed for disfigurement of his hand. Paragraph (c) of section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides: “For any serious and permanent disfigurement to the hand, head or face, the employee shall be entitled to compensation for such disfigurement * # * : Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this paragraph where compensation is payable under paragraph (d), (e) or (f) of this section”. Claimant’s compensation for the loss of his thumb is payable under paragraph (e) of section 8 and therefore he is not entitled to compensation for disfigurement of his hand. (Chicago Home v. Industrial Com, 297 Ill. 386.) The legislature has seen fit to enact this provision of the law and all courts are bound by it. If it is unwise the. remedy is with the legislature, not with the courts.

Claimant also asks to Tie awarded $1,400.00 on account of delay in the payment of the compensation to which he is entitled, and bases this demand upon section 19 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Paragraph (k) of that section provides that where there has been any unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment, etc., the commission may award compensation additional to that otherwise payable under the act equal to 50% of the amount payable'at the time of such award. Claimant’s injury was received March 26, 1926. He filed his declaration August 17, 1926. The next regular term of this court was the second Tuesday of the September following. At that time claimant had not taken his testimony and did not take it until the following January. His brief was not filed until February 18th of this year. Whatever delay there has been appears to have been the result of claimant’s failure to have his case ready for hearing at the regular terms of this court in September and January. There is. no merit in his contention of unreasonable or vexatious delay, and no award will be allowed on that account.

It is ordered that claimant be and he is awarded the sum of $1,066.50 in full compensation for the injury sustained.


text:
    (No. 1080
    Claimant awarded $3,750.00.)
    Mary Korenski, Widow of Frank Korenski, Alias Karynski, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.
    Military service — when award may he made to injured soldier. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in Daniels v. State, supra.

    J. S. Cook and Frank T. Sharp, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears from the records and evidence in this case that' Frank Korenski, now deceased, was, on the 22nd day of July, 1922, a member of Battery E, Second Field Artillery, Illinois State Militia, and while in line of duty on said day and acting, as it appears, under orders, he was knocked off a truck and killed.

It appears further to this court that the said, deceased left surviving him a widow, of whom he was the sole support, and it will further appear to the court from the statement of the Attorney General that this claim probably could have been made a consent case, but that the matter of allowance should be left to this court.

There is no legal liability on the part of the State.' However’, it has been the practice, as a matter of equity and good conscience, to make an allowance in this class of cases, and wherein an allowance is made in a case of this character that the measure of damage or allowance should be measured by the “Workmen’s Compensation Act,” and the court, following that precedent, recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $3,750.00.


text:
    (No. 1098
    Claimant awarded $350.00.)
    John R. Christian, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

    Respondeat superior — property damage. When award may he made- to State employee. While the State is not liable to claimant for injuries sustained by him while in the discharge of his duty, yet as a matter of equity and good conscience ah award may be made to him for damages to his property used by him in the course of his employment.
    Benj. F. Cassiday, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was employed by the State of Illinois on the 19th day of August, 1925, mowing grass and weeds along the right of way of the durable hard surface road on Route No. 4 between Elkhart and Broadwell in the county of Logan and State of Illinois, and while thus employed under the orders of superintendents, a patrolman, Luther Arney, of the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways, was collided with from the rear by an Overland sedan automobile bearing Illinois 1925 license, purported to be owned by one J. W. Finney, of Bluffs, Illinois, and as the result of .such accident the claimant alleges that he received two severe wounds on- the head, cut down to the skull, severe abrasions and bruises on back. The mules driven by claimant were knocked down and injured about the knees and hip- The mower in which claimant was riding was completely destroyed and the harness damaged beyond repair, all of which is as alleged by claimant.

It appears that claimant was injured while acting as au employee of the State of Illinois, and, while there is no lega] liability, it has been the practice of this court to follow the Workmen’s Compensation Act in dealing with the employees of the State. The Attorney General of the State comes and files a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

It would appear to the court from the records in this case that the man driving the car that caused the injury should respond to claimant in the matter of property damaged and bear in mind the claimant’s personal injuries, time' lost, etc.

However, it would appear from all of the facts in the case and the matter of equity and good conscience, the claimant should recover a reasonable allowance for property damages.

Therefore, it is recommended by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $350.00.


text:
    (No. 1105
    Claimant awarded $1,460.00.)
    Carl Jones, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.
    Respondeat superior — when State not liable. State employee. The doctrine of Respondeat Superior is not applicable to the State, and it is no.t liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. Compensation aet. An award may be made to an employee of the State who is injured while in the discharge of his duty, and compensation fixed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation act.
    Oscar J. Putting and W. E. Lindgren, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration filed by claimant on December 11, 1926, alleges that claimant on July 6, A. D. 1925, was an employee of the State of Illinois in the highway department at Springfield, Illinois, such employment being as a laborer at the Illinois State Fair Grounds, which employment was under the supervision and direction of Robert Abels, foreman of laborers ; that on said day and at said place, he was ordered and directed" by his foreman, Robert Abels, to saw certain stakes on a rip saw, which was located at the big barn at the northeast corner of the Illinois State Fair Grounds, Spring-field, Illinois; that while thus engaged in sawing stakes on said rip saw, the glove on his left hand caught in the saw, causing his left hand to be severely cut, bruised and lacerated and cutting off his first finger on said left hand; that he spent, to-wit, $300.00 endeavoring to be cured from said wounds, and he makes a claim for $2,000.00 from the State of Illinois.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is sustained, as a matter of law.

From the testimony, it appears that claimant sustained a total permanent loss of the thumb and index finger on his left hand. While there is no legal liability on the part of the State of Illinois to make an award on account of the injuries to claimant, as a matter of equity and social justice, we award to claimant the sum which he would be entitled to receive were he employed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois, or $200.00 hospital and doctor bills, and $1,260.00 for the total permanent loss of both thumb and index finger, or a total award of $1,460.00.


text:
    (No. 1108
    Claimant awarded $1,460.00.)
    Jesse H. Crane Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may he made. An award may be made in favor of an injured employee of the State, while in the discharge of his duty, under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
    Oscar J. Putting and W. E. Lindgren, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Jesse H. Crane, in his declaration filed in this court on December 17, 1926, alleges that on August 31, A. D. 1925, he was an employee of the State of Illinois, in the highway department at Springfield, Illinois, such employment being as a laborer at the Illinois State Fair Grounds, which employment was under the supervision and direction of Eobert Abels, foreman of laborers; that he was, at that time and place, ordered and directed by his said foreman, Eobert Abels, to saw certain stakes on a rip saw, which was located in a frame building covered with canvas at the northeast corner of the Illinois State Fair Grounds, at Springfield, Illinois; that while he was thus engaged in sawing stakes on said rip saw his feet slipped, causing his left hand to come in contact with said saw, and, in consequence thereof, his left hand was severely cut, bruised and lacerated; that he has spent, to-wit, $300.00 in his endeavors to become healed and cured of his injuries; that at the time of the injury he had a child and his mother who were and are dependent upon him for support, and he makes a claim for an award of $2,000.00 from the State of Illinois..

To this declaration, the State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

It appears from the testimony that there is a total permanent loss of the thumb and index finger, and that claimant was receiving the sum of $24.00 per week.

While we do not concede that there is any legal liability on the part of the State to make an award in this case, as a matter of social justice and equity, we award claimant the sum of $1,460.00, figuring the loss under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois.


text:
    (No. 1130
    Claimant awarded $1,711.40.)
    Charles A. Elliott, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.
    Respondeat superior — when State not liable. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. An award may be made to an injured employee of the State, who is injured in the discharge of his duty, and compensation fixed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
    Chiperfield & Chiperfield, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Charles A. Elliott, of Canton, Illinois, in his declaration alleges that on May 12, 1926, while in the employ of the State of Illinois, Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways, Bureau of Maintenance, he was injured by reason of an accident which occurred while he was working on said day filling cracks with tar and sand in the hard road upon Route 9, one-fourth of a mile west of the corporate limits of the city of Canton, Pulton county, Illinois, when he was struck with great violence by an automobile traveling upon said public highway and coming from the west, and as a result of such striking and collision the claimant received a broken left leg; the muscles and ligaments of his . back and hip were strained and injured and he received a great nervous shock, and thereby became lame, sick, sore and disordered; that his earnings during the preceding year were $1,500.00; that no compensation has been received from the employer on account of medical care and attendance.

To the declaration, the State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

While there is no legal liability on the part of the State of Illinois on account of the injury in question, on the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum which he would be entitled to receive under the provisions of the • Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois, or the sum of $1,711.40.


text:
    (No. 1136
    Claimant awarded $1,800.00.)
    Jacob Judnick, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.
    Governmental function — State Penitentiary at Statesville. The State in conducting its State Penitentiary at Statesville exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees therein, while in the performance of their duty.
    Equity and good conscience — award may he made. Where an employee of the State is engaged in a hazardous and dangerous employment, an award will he made to him for injuries sustained and compensation fixed according to the provisions of the Workman’s Compensation Act.
    John L. Walker, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears from the records in this case that claimant was. on the 5th day of May, A. D. 1926, employed as a guard at the Illinois State Penitentiary located at Statesville, Illinois. On that day he was stationed outside of the door of the deputy warden’s office at said institution. On.the forenoon of that day, while performing his duties as such guard, he heard a violent commotion in the reception room, or otherwise known as the deputy warden’s office. He opened the door and found the deputy warden’s body on the floor, the said deputy warden having been violently attacked by six convicts, who killed him. This guard immediately tried to quell the disturbance, and that he was struck over the left arm by a sharp instrument, beaten around the body and struck on the forehead with a sharp instrument by said convicts and that he- was rendered unconscious. Claimant seeks to recover $2,500.00 for his in- • juries.

It is the opinion of this court that there is no legal liability on the part of the State. However, as a matter of equity and good conscience, it is the opinion of the court that this claim should be considered. There is no question as to the fact of claimant being injured in the course of his regular employment, and the evidence shows that he was engaged in a hazardous occupation and that he was in grave danger when he was injured from the attack of these convicts. However, this court, as a matter of precedent and statute, must follow the Workmen’s Compensation Act in measuring damages. It does not appear from the evidence that there is any permanent injury other than that of nervousness, which, of course, is a serious situation if it would continue. We assume from the testimony that this condition came from a shock and it is problematical as to how long it will continue.

It is the opinion of the court that, taking into consideration all the evidence and keeping in mind the rules of. the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the amount asked by the claimant exceeds that amount which should be allowed in this case. However, it is the policy of the court to be fair to the employees of the State, particularly those who are engaged in dangerous employment and .therefore the court recommends the allowance to claimant of $1,800.00.


text:
    (No. 1143
    Claimant awarded $131.41.)
    Illinois Bell Telephone Company, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

      Service — when State liable for telephone service. Where claimant furnishes telephone service to a department of the State, at the request of an authorized agent of the State, and the rates are the same as those charged to its regular subscribers, the State is liable for the service furnished.
    Horace A. Young, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration filed by the claimant in this case alleges that it is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, and is engaged in a general public utility telephone business in the city of Chicago and elsewhere in the State of Illinois, and is authorized by its charter so to do; that on or about October 11, 1919, the State of Illinois, by its agent, Charles J. Boyd, then general superintendent of the Illinois Free Employment Office, 116 North Dearborn street, Chicago, Illinois, and whose present address is the same (the corporate name of which was the Chicago Telephone Company), in writing requested claimant to furnish telephone service to defendant at its office at 344 East 35th street, Chicago, Illinois; that claimant did furnish such telephone service from time to time as requested by defendant, at 344 East 35th street, Chicago, Illinois, and at 417 East 35th street, Chicago, Illinois; that the rates charged defendant are its lawful rates for its patrons and subscribers in and for its Chicago exchange; that at various times defendant paid various amounts as agreed; that there is a total unpaid balance due claimant of $131.41, and that same has not been paid because the appropriation therefor was exhausted.

A consent to the allowance of said claim, by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, same having been submitted to George B- Arnold, Director of the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois, was filed.

We accordingly award claimant the sum of $131.41.


text:
    (No. 1145
    Claim denied.)
    E. P. Olson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

      Contract — State highway. When State not liable. Where claimant enters into a contract with the State for excavation work in constructing its State highway, and in carrying out his contract he is compelled to do extra work, the State is not liable to him for the additional expense incurred by him in the performance of his contract.
    O. J. Putting and Walter E. Lindgren, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

On the 8th day of September, 1925, claimant entered into a contract with the State to do some excavating - on Route 24 near the State Fair Ground. The contract contained'the usual terms and provisions and was based on the usual plans and specifications adopted by the State Highway Department for excavation work on State highways. Claimant introduced the contract, plans and specifications in evidence. The State introduced no evidence but relies upon the provisions of the contract, introduced by claimant. The contention of claimant is that while making the excavation he struck a very unusual earth condition of wet mucky loam or clay that did not come under either of the classifications mentioned in the plans and specifications, which caused him an additional expense of $3,724.72, and he has filed this claim for amount. •

Claimant did not testify himself and has not proven by any one that he sustained any loss in doing the work. The specifications which are a part of the contract, provide for three classifications for excavation, viz.: Class A which includes clay, sand, loam, gravel and all hard material that can, in the opinion of the engineer, be reasonably plowed; all earthy matter or earth containing loose stones or boulders intermixed ; all other material which does not come under Class B or Class C excavation. Class B which includes all stone and detached rock measuring less than one-half cubic yard in volume ; all slate, shale, conglomerate, and like materials soft or loose enough to be removed with heavy machinery without blasting, even though blasting may be resorted to in order to expedite the work. Class C which includes all boulders measuring one-half cubic yard and upwards; all solid or hard ledge rock in removing which it is necessary to resort to continuous drilling and blasting.

Claimant introduced the resident engineer as a witness, who testified that he was present on the job while the excavation was being done, and that the conditions found came unless .Class A of the specifications. Claimant was paid in accordance with the price fixed for Class A excavation. The evidence in this case does not show any unusual conditions not covered by the plans and specifications whereby the State is liable to pay claimant an additional sum for the work done by him. hi either has claimant made any showing entitling him to consideration on the grounds of equity and social justice. He was a man of mature years who had long and varied experience in bidding on work of this character, and if he made a mistake and bid too low it was his own and not the State’s fault. If claims of this character are allowed the State would never know when a contract is let what it would have to pay when the work is finished.

The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1166
    Claimant awarded $300.00.)
    Genevieve M. Fogarty, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.
    Fees & salames — when State liable. Claimant is entitled' to the salary-fixed by an appropriation made by the General Assembly for the position.
    Joseph L. Gill, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant was employed as a statistical clerk in the Division of State Fair of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Illinois from the 1st day of July, 1923, until the 1st day of September, 1924, and it further appears that the- 53rd General Assembly appropriated for the salary of this position the sum of $2,100.00 per annum, which would be at the rate of $175.00 per month, and it further appears, without contradiction, that claimant only received $150.00 per month for the period above mentioned.

It is the opinion of this court that the legislature intended that the occupant of this position should receive $175.00 per month for this period, which would be $300.00 more than the amount paid claimant.

Therefore this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $300.00.


text:
    (No. 1178
    Claimant awarded $3,094.50.)
    Harold W. Nuttall, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 29, 1927.

    Workmen’s compensation act — when award made, under provision of. Where claimant was directed by his superior officer to perform a duty on behalf of the State, and in the performance of his duty, and in the course of his employment, he is injured, he is entitled to an award based upon the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
    A. C. Bohm, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was employed by the State of Illinois on the 26th day of February, 1925, as a highway patrolman, working under the supervision and direction of the Division of Highways, and while thus employed was ordered and directed by the district engineer’s office, of the Division of Highways to attend a meeting to be held at Elgin, Illinois, on the 26th day of February, 1925, to be present there for a discussion and talk upon maintenance and repair .of bond issue roads, to be given by the maintenance engineer of the Division of Highways of the State of Illinois.

Claimant attended said meeting in the line of his duty, and after the close of said meeting he got into his automobile and left for his home at Waukegan, Illinois. The city of Elgin, Illinois, is outside of the district assigned to this claimant.

While driving to his home at Waukegan, he collided with a street car in Elgin, Illinois, and damaged his automobile to the extent of $175.00, and in addition thereto suffered a broken jaw bone, and a broken left arm and other physical injuries. Anldylosis developed in Ms left arm, and claimant has permanently lost 75% of the use of said injured arm.

It appears that claimant was injured in the course of his employment in line of duty and suffered damages while acting as an employee of the State of Illinois, and claimant is entitled to compensation, and, measuring claimant’s damages under said act and from the evidence, it is recommended by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $3,094.50.


text:
    (No. 960
    Claim denied.)
    J. J. Lennon, Sr., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed January 19, 1927

      Rehearing denied May 12, 1927.

    Non-liability of state — when State not liable. State highway. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by claimant who was injured as a result of his own negligence while driving on the State highway.
    Herbert P. Folkers, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover damages in the sum of $7,213.20 on account of hospital bills, doctor bills, nurse’s bill, bills for repairs to auto truck and to pay for help to replace claimant in his business and for loss occasioned to his business by his failure to be there. Claimant avers that on October 9th, 1923, he was traveling along a State highway, known as the Channahon road, which road runs between Morris and Joliet, Illinois; that about two miles southwest of Joliet, Illinois, is a bridge sometimes known as Brandon’s bridge; that about 100 feet or so before reaching said bridge, the pavement ends, and the portion lying between the terminus of said pavement and said bridge is unpaved and in a rough and dangerous condition; that just before reaching said bridge, said highway makes a sharp right angles turn'; that because of the failure of the State of Illinois to erect suitable warnings to appraise him of the dangerous condition of the road ahead, claimant lost control of his car while so driving on said road and was thrown into the ditch adjacent to said highway and sustained injuries for which above damages are claimed.

The evidence shows that claimant was driving a Dodge truck about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of October 9, 1923, along said road, at the speed of about thirty miles an hour, immediately before coming to said end of the pavement; that he was entirely familiar with the condition of the road at the place of the accident, having traveled over said road for the last 25 years. It also appears that a sign marked “Danger, end of pavement” is posted 400 feet from the end of the pavement.

We do not believe, in view of the testimony in this case, which has been carefully considered, that the State is guilty of negligence, and find that the accident was the result of the negligence of the claimant in this case.

Wherefore the demurrer filed by the Attorney General to the declaration filed in this case is sustained and the case is dismissed.

Opinion' on Rehearing Filed May 12,1927.

This case is again before the court on a petition for a rehearing. ' The claimant seeks to recover damages from the State of Illinois on account of hospital bills, doctor bills, nurse’s bills, bills for repairs to automobile, and to pay for help to replace claimant in his business, and for loss occasioned to his business by his failure to be there: The accident occurred while claimant was traveling along a State highway, known as the Channahon road, which runs between Morris and Joliet, Illinois, at a point about two miles southwest of Joliet, Illinois. It appears that just before arriving at a bridge known as Brandon’s bridge there is a sharp turn and that, according to claimant’s testimony, there was no.warning sign to notify him of the turn. His testimony further shows that he had traveled over this same road for 25 years, and knew of its dangerous condition, and that he was traveling at the rate of thirty miles an hour. We adhere to our former opinion that the accident was the result of the negligence of the claimant in this case, and an award is denied.