Blazer v. HIGHWAY COM'R OF MARENGO TP.

Citations: 235 N.E.2d 13; 93 Ill. App. 2d 89Docket: Gen. No. 67-113

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; March 10, 1968; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Karen Blazer and Howard Blazer, represented by their mother Gladys Blazer, initiated a lawsuit against the Highway Commissioner of Marengo Township for personal injuries and property damage resulting from alleged negligence in maintaining River Road. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant had a duty to keep the road safe for public travel and failed to fulfill that obligation. The defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Highway Commissioner, as an office rather than an individual, lacked the legal capacity to be sued. The trial court granted the dismissal, and the plaintiffs did not seek to amend their complaint to name the current highway commissioner or his executor, who had died prior to the lawsuit.

On appeal, the court addressed whether the dismissal order was final and appealable. The appellate court determined that the order was indeed final as it resolved the rights of the parties involved. The court then ruled that the Highway Commissioner does have the capacity to be sued, referencing relevant statutes that outline the responsibilities and powers of the highway commissioner, including the authority to manage road maintenance and finances pertaining to road construction. Furthermore, the court cited provisions in the Township Organization Act that support the notion that legal actions can be commenced against town officers in their official capacity, with any judgments against them treated as town charges.

Section 6-402 of the Roads and Bridges Act allows joint actions against Highway Commissioners by interested parties for neglect of duty or damages related to bridges or culverts. Additionally, Section 6-412.1 and Section 3.24 of the Township Organization Act permit township highway commissioners to procure liability insurance for themselves and their employees against wrongful or negligent actions while performing their duties. These provisions should be interpreted together, establishing that the term "highway commissioner" encompasses both the office and the individual officers, who can initiate and face lawsuits. 

Case law supports this interpretation, with decisions indicating that highway commissioners function as quasi-public corporations with implied powers necessary for fulfilling their statutory duties. In several cases, courts affirmed that suits against highway commissioners should occur in their official capacities rather than individual names, underscoring their recognition as distinct entities capable of legal action. Moreover, the courts have consistently acknowledged township highway commissioners as quasi-public corporations, possessing the ability to sue and be sued independently of the Town or Township itself. The Civil Practice Act further clarifies the procedure for serving summonses against quasi-municipal corporations, reinforcing their legal standing.

The lawsuit against the Highway Commissioner of Marengo Township was valid as the plaintiffs intended to hold the office accountable in its official capacity. Naming the individual commissioner was unnecessary and could complicate matters due to potential term expiration or death. The defendant's motion to dismiss, based solely on lack of capacity to be sued, should have been denied. Both parties discussed whether the defendant could be held liable for alleged torts, an issue likely addressed by the trial court and relevant on remand. Historically, governmental immunity limited liability for municipal entities, but the case of Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District established that liability follows negligence, applying this principle to quasi-municipal corporations like school districts. Subsequent rulings, including Harvey v. Clyde Park District, affirmed that quasi-municipal corporations, including highway commissioners, can be held liable for neglect of duty. The court recognized that the Highway Commissioner, as a quasi-public corporation, may be liable for negligence committed by its agents or employees. The potential individual liability of an employee does not negate the corporation's liability. The court concluded that the defendant has the capacity to be sued and potentially held liable for torts, reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings.