Haymes v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
| Decision Date | 19 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38976,38976 |
| Citation | 33 Ill.2d 425,211 N.E.2d 690 |
| Parties | Kenneth E. HAYMES, Appellee, v. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann & Hoban, Chicago (Oswell G. Treadway, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Philip H. Corboy and James P. Chapman, Chicago, for appellee.
The plaintiff, a minor, by his mother as next friend brings this personal injury action for $40,000 damages against defendant, a corporation sole, and charges in his amended complaint that his injuries sustained January 18, 1960, at Franciscan Sisters of St. Pancratius School were proximately caused by defendant's negligence, said school being owned, operated, managed, maintained and controlled by defendant. The circuit court of Cook County granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff first appealed to this court on constitutional grounds, but since plaintiff urged no constitutional grounds in the trial court, on plaintiff's own motion, we transferred the cause to the First District Appellate Court, which reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court. The appellate court found the amended complaint stated a cause of action against the defendant, but directed the trial court to reduce the ad damnum from $40,000 to $10,000, the limit of recovery under section 5, subd. B of the School Tort Liability Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 122, par. 825.
We granted leave to appeal, and the principal issue presented is whether the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the School Tort Liability Act () requiring the giving of written notice of injury within six months of the date of injury, are binding on minor claimants. The amended complaint is silent as to the giving of notice, but specifically alleges the plaintiff's age as 13 years as of the date of the occurrence on January 18, 1960.
Section 3 provides: 'Within six months from the date that such injury was received or such cause of action accrued, any person who is about to commence any civil action in any court against any school district for damages on account of any injury to his person or property shall file in the office of the school board attorney, if there is a school board attorney, and also in the office of the clerk or secretary of the school board, either by himself, his agent or attorney, a statement in writing signed by himself, his agent or attorney, giving the name of the person to whom the cause of action has accrued the name and residence of the person injured, the date and about the hour of the accident, the place or location where the accident occurred and the name and address of the attending physician, if any.
'With respect to non-profit private schools the statement in writing required hereunder shall be filed in the office of the Superintendent or Principal of such school.'
Section 4 provides: 'If the notice provided by Section 3 is not filed as provided therein, any such civil action commenced against any school district or non-profit private school shall be dismissed and the person to whom any such cause of action accrued for any personal injury or property damage shall be forever barred from further suing.'
Defendant urges that the enactment of the School Tort Liability Act in 1959 was in response to the abolition by this court of the doctrine or governmental immunity as to school districts in molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist., 18 Ill.2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89, 86 A.L.R.2d 469, and created a new cause of action subject to the conditions precedent prescribed in the act. Thus defendant contends that the instant situation parallels dramshop and wrongful death actions, in both of which we have held that the time fixed for filing suit is a condition of liability. Lowrey v. Malkowski, 20 Ill.2d 280, 170 N.E.2d 147; Wilson v. Tromly, 404 Ill. 307, 89 N.E.2d 22.
However, we specifically stated in Molitor, 18 Ill.2d 11, 25, 163 N.E.2d 89, 96: It is apparent, therefore, that the act in question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Durtschi
...fixed for giving a city a notice of a claim against it. Bergstrom, supra, 468 S.W.2d at 590. See also Haymes v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 33 Ill.2d 425, 211 N.E.2d 690, 692 (1965); Hunter, supra, 529 P.2d at 900; City of Tulsa v. Wells, 79 Okl. 39, 191 P. 186, 194 (Okla.1920); Webster v. ......
-
Wilbon v. D. F. Bast Co., Inc.
...the court held that the action of a minor child was not barred by reason of failure to give the notice. In Haymes v. Catholic Bishop (1965), 33 Ill.2d 425, 211 N.E.2d 690, the court held that the notice requirement of sections 3 and 4 of the school tort liability act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, ch.......
-
Tenenbaum v. City of Chicago
...However, the claim that the statute is a nullity was never asserted by defendants and was therefore waived. Haymes v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 33 Ill.2d 425, 211 N.E.2d 690. The objections made in the conference on instructions, after the parties had stipulated the project contracts were......
-
Dachs v. Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hosp.
...Ill. 194, 153 N.E. 831), to allow minors to file school tort claims without meeting notice requirements (Haymes v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1965), 33 Ill.2d 425, 211 N.E.2d 690), and to permit minors to bring suits against dissolved corporations within two years of reaching their minorit......