Helle v. Brush

• Decision Date: 26 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 44907,44907
• Citation: 53 Ill.2d 405,292 N.E.2d 372
• Parties: Lloyd C. HELLE, Highway Commissioner, Appellee, v. Billy G. BRUSH, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 372

292 N.E.2d 372

53 Ill.2d 405

Lloyd C. HELLE, Highway Commissioner, Appellee, v. Billy G. BRUSH, Appellant.

No. 44907.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 26, 1973.

Claudon, Elson & Lloyd, Canton (James J. Elson, Canton, of counsel), for petitioner.

Froehling & Taylor, Canton, for respondent.

DAVIS, Justice.

The sole issue for our determination in this case is whether a timely counterclaim may be filed by the defendant, Billy G. Brush, against the plaintiff and counterdefendant, Lloyd C. Helle, Highway Commissioner for Lee Township Road District, a public entity, under the provisions of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 85, par. 8--102), when the underlying suit and counterclaim arise from the same occurrence. The trial court and appellate court (2 Ill.App.3d 951, 275 N.E.2d 688) held that the defendant's counterclaim was barred because of his failure to give notice under the provisions of section 8--102 of the Tort Immunity Act, and his counterclaim was dismissed. We granted leave to appeal.

On June 28, 1968, Brush was involved in an accident with a road grader operated by the plaintiff. On May 7, 1969, the plaintiff filed this action in the circuit court of Fulton County seeking property damages against defendant Brush in the sum of $1,427.20. The suit was filed more than 6 months after the date of the accident; and the defendant had not filed notice of injury with the Road District within 6 months of the date of his injury, as required by section 8--102, if he were 'about to commence any civil action for damages on account of such injury.' The defendant did, however, file an answer and counterclaim on June 5, 1969. In the counterclaim he sought damages for the personal injuries which he suffered in the accident. This counterclaim was filed more than six months, but less than one year, after the date of the accident. See: Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 85, par. 8--101.

We are of the opinion that the defendant should not be prohibited from filing his counterclaim. Section 8--102 of the Tort Immunity Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 85, par. 8--102) provides:

'Within 6 months from the date that the injury or cause of action, referred to in Sections 8--102 and 8--103, was received or accrued, Any person who is about to commence any civil action for damages on account of such injury against a local public entity, or against any of its employees whose act or omission committed while acting in the scope of his employment as such employee caused the injury, must personally serve in the Office of the Secretary or Clerk, as the case may be, for the entity against whom or against whose employee the action is contemplated a written statement, 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, the general nature of the accident and the name and address of the attending physician, if any.' (Emphasis ours.)

Section 8--103 of the Act then provides:

'If the notice under Section 8--102 is not served as provided therein, Any such civil action commenced against a local public entity, or against any of its employees whose act or omission committed while acting in the scope of his employment as such employee caused the injury, shall be dismissed and the person to whom such cause of injury accrued shall be forever barred from further suing.' (Emphasis ours.)

The Tort Immunity Act, in part, is the legislative result of our decision in Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist. (1959), 18 Ill.2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89. In general, it adopts the Molitor rule of liability of public entities but specifies certain exceptions and limitations to actions to enforce liability thereunder. The purposes of the statute requiring notice have been said to be: to permit early investigation and prompt settlement of meritorious claims; to avoid the expenses and costs of suit where settlement can be achieved; and to permit the public entity to determine its budget in advance, for taxing purposes. (Reynolds v. City of Tuscola (1971), 48 Ill.2d 339, 342, 270 N.E.2d 415; King v. Johnson (1970), 47 Ill.2d 247, 250--251, 265 N.E.2d 874; 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, sec. 686.) The statement of these purposes elucidates the pragmatic reasons which underlie the notice and which are proper for our consideration in construing the statute. People ex rel. Cason v. Ring (1968), 41 Ill.2d 305, 310, 242 N.E.2d 267.

Here, the fact that the public entity commenced the action indicates that the facts were not stale, and the avowed purpose of avoiding the expenses of litigation cannot be achieved since the public entity initiated the litigation. While the additional purpose of enabling a public entity to determine its budget for tax purposes is laudable, it must be weighed against the rights of the person who is sued to assert a cause of action against the litigant who brought him to court.

Illustrative of this is section 17 of the Limitations Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 83, par. 18), which provides that the bar of a statute of limitations should not in all circumstances be available as a defense to a counterclaim or setoff. The section provides:

'A defendant may plead a set-off or counter claim barred by the statute of limitation, while held and owned by him, to any action, the cause of which was owned by the plaintiff or person under whom he claims, before such set-off or counter claim was so barred, and not otherwise: Provided, this section shall not affect the right of a bona fide assignee of a negotiable instrument assigned before due.'

The applicable time limitation under the Tort Immunity Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 85, par. 8--101) had not yet run as to the defendant's cause of action when he filed his counterclaim.

...