Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ill. Ct. Cl. 35

Caudle v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Decided October 20, 1949

Court of Claims of Illinois · decided 1949-10-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1996

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-10-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Delaney, J.

¶1Claimant filed Ms claim on December 22, 1948, alleging that on the evening of December 24, 1947, at about. 8:30 P. M. while driving his 1939 Dodge four-door sedan, automobile at a moderate rate of speed on State Highway-No. 37 between Olmsted, Illinois, and Mound City, Illinois, in Pulaski County, said claimant struck a hole in the pavement as he entered a curve in the road; that claimant lost control of his automobile causing said automobile to overturn twice, damaging the automobile beyond repair, and claimant also alleges that he sustained' personal injuries.

¶2The record consists of the complaint, transcript of' evidence and claimant’s waiver of brief. The evidence-shows that a hole measuring 3 feet long, 18 to 24 inches, wide, and 3 inches deep developed in the paved road’ near the center line of said highway and that a highway maintenance employee of respondent had knowledge of this damaged pavement for four or five days prior to the-accident.

¶3The evidence further shows that the claimant’s automobile had a value of approximately $1,200.00 at the time of the accident; that it was a total wreck and that claimant sold the damaged automobile for the sum of $300.00. The evidence further shows that claimant'received minor-injuries and had a doctor bill for treatment administered to him by Dr. Hudson in the amount of $25.00. ■ The evidence fails to prove damages for ,use of automobile, loss of wages aud physical suffering for injuries sustained as ■set forth in claimant’s complaint; that as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the respondent claimant is entitled to an award in the sum of $900.00 representing the actual loss he sustained on his automobile and the sum of $25.00 representing professional services rendered by his doctor.

¶4The evidence further shows that the claimant was the sole owner of the automobile which was damaged.

¶5An award is therefore entered in favor of claimant, “Wayne Caudle, for the sum of $925.00.

/19/illctcl/35 · .json · Public domain