Creamer v. Rude, Gen. No. 62-M-14

Decision Date22 September 1962
Docket NumberGen. No. 62-M-14
Citation185 N.E.2d 345,37 Ill.App.2d 148
PartiesJohn CREAMER, Flora White and Truman Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Aude RUDE, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Donald R. Mitchell, Bill F. Green, Murphysboro, for appellant.

Ralph W. Harris, Marion, Jack Williamson, Vienna, for appellees.

HOFFMAN, Justice.

This suit was filed to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs arising out of an accident which occurred when the motor vehicle in which they were riding collided with a State Highway maintenance truck being operated by the defendant. The cause was tried before a jury solely on the question of ordinary negligence, no wilful and wanton count being presented. Judgments in favor of the plaintiffs upon the verdicts were entered by the trial judge and it is from these judgments that this appeal is taken.

The facts are these: On the night of February 27, 1960 at approximately 11:00 o'clock P.M. the defendant, a highway maintenance employee of the State, was operating a State Highway maintenance truck removing snow from and spreading cinders along U. S. Route 45 in Johnson County, Illinois. The truck was equipped with a snow plow in front and cinder spreader in the rear and the defendant's helper rode with the defendant who was driving. The weather conditions were very bad and driving was hazardous; the highway and shoulders were covered with snow and ice. While the defendant drove, the helper operated the plow.

While clearing the snow along this highway they came upon a semi-trailer truck stalled in the other lane about halfway up a long grade. The wheels of the trailer truck couldn't get enough traction to make the climb. Upon seeing this stalled truck, the defendant stopped the highway truck opposite the stalled vehicle and the defendant's helper got out of the State truck and threw cinders under the drive wheels of the stalled vehicle. This enabled the trailer truck to move a few feet up the grade, whereupon the helper obtained more cinders from a pile along the east side of the road and threw them under the drive wheels. This procedure was repeated a number of times and the semi moved slowly up the hill. All of this time the defendant remained in the cab of the State truck stopped on the highway in the other lane.

The trailer truck was equipped with 2 headlights, 2 lights on the cab, 2 blinkers, one on each fender, all of which were on at the time. The State truck had a cluster light pointing to the rear, an amber flasher light which revolved, a red taillight, and a red stop light, all on at the time.

After the trailer truck had moved up the hill about 20 to 60 feet beyond where the State truck was stopped, and while defendant's helper was still spreading cinders under the trailer truck's wheels, the plaintiff and his passengers came down the grade in the lane of the State vehicle at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour. The plaintiff testified that the lights of the trailer truck blinded him and after he passed this truck, he collided with the State truck in his lane.

The defendant rests this appeal on 2 grounds: (1) that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed outright for the reason that the defendant is not liable to plaintiffs unless he is guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct; and (2) that the court incorrectly instructed the jury.

With regard to the first ground, the defendant contends that certain acts and duties performed by employees of the State of Illinois are so closely associated with the welfare of the general public, and are of such magnitude, that the public must rely upon the State to perform these functions; that these particular functions are considered governmental in nature rather than merely proprietary or ministerial; and that the removal of ice and snow from the main traveled highways of the State of Illinois is such an unusual function that while performing that duty, the defendant is not held liable for ordinary negligence. He does not contend that the doctrine of governmental immunity applies to him nor does he contend that drivers of highway maintenance trucks in all situations can be held liable only for wilful and wanton misconduct. He argues from the Supreme Court's opinion in Mower v. Williams, 402 Ill. 486, 84 N.E.2d 435, that 'due to the fact that his duties were such that he was classed as a governmental officer, he could not be held liable for mere errors in judgment or ordinary negligence but was liable only for actions constituting wilful and wanton misconduct'.

We have carefully examined the Mower opinion, and the opinions in Hering v. Hilton, 12 Ill.2d 559, 147 N.E.2d 311 and Pree v. Hymbaugh, 23 Ill.App.2d 211, 162 N.E.2d 297, which followed after the Mower case. These cases represent, in Illinois, the latest thinking of our Supreme Court and of the Appellate Court, Third District, upon the question involved here. There is no point in rehashing the facts of these cases and reanalyzing their holdings. Suffice it to say that we conclude from these cases that the holding of the trial judge permitting the plaintiffs to go to the jury against this State employee on ordinary negligence grounds alone represents the present view in Illinois and was correct.

And sound reasoning is found elsewhere to support this conclusion. We have held that a policeman in pursuit of a traffic violator is liable for injury caused by ordinary negligence. In the case of Moore v. Cook, 22 Ill.App.2d 48, 159 N.E.2d 496, this court had before it such a case. It was then argued that since this was a governmental function, the policeman's ordinary negligence had no application. We refused to accept the argument and held that in such a situation, ordinary negligence was the test. This did not mean that the jury could not consider the peculiar facts of the case, but the holding was that those peculiar facts did not change the general rule.

Such, too, is the general rule with regard to the conduct of a policeman who injures a person in a traffic mishap. See 60 A.L.R.2d 890, sec. 5, Police-Liability for Injury. Is a policeman in the performance of his duty less engaged in a governmental function than a highway maintenance employee?

A worker who must be on the highway while repairing or constructing a highway may have a special status because of his job but it is held that he must exercise ordinary care for his own safety. In 5 A.L.R.2d 769 appears a discussion on injury to persons working in streets. There it is stated that while it is recognized that such a worker has a special status, his duty is to 'exercise only that care which an ordinarily prudent man, similarly employed in the highway, would and could take to avoid injury by passing vehicles'. This, like I.P.I.'s instruction on negligence (See No. 10.01) permits a consideration of the conduct of persons similarly situated.

In 30 A.L.R.2d 1019 is a discussion of liability for injury incident to towing other motor vehicles. There...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Madden v. Kuehn, 76-381
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 9, 1978
    ... ... Snow, John B. Whiton, Freeport, William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Patricia Rosen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for defendants-appellees ... g., Lusietto v. Kingan (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 239, 246 N.E.2d 24; Creamer v. Rude (1962), 37 Ill.App.2d 148, 185 N.E.2d 345.) However, there are ... ...
  • Brooks v. Lundeen
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 26, 1977
    ... ... (Sundin v. Hughes (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 195, 246 N.E.2d 100; Creamer v. Rude (1962), 37 Ill.App.2d 148, 153-54, 185 N.E.2d 345; Moore v. Cook ... ...
  • First Midwest Trust Co. v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 3, 1998
    ... ... In Creamer v. Rude, 37 Ill.App.2d 148, 185 N.E.2d 345 (1962), the court applied the ... ...
  • Lusietto v. Kingan, Gen. No. 68--46
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 1969
    ... ... Creamer v. Rude, 37 Ill.App.2d 148, 185 N.E.2d 345. In order for a negligent act to give rise to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT