Opinion ID: 2042260
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs' Claims in Tort

Text: Defendant claims the protection of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Our state constitution abolished this traditional doctrine, [e]xcept as the General Assembly may provide by law. Ill. Const.1970, art. XIII, § 4. The Court of Claims Act (Act) (750 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2004)) is the legislature's exercise of that grant of authority. The Act establishes the Court of Claims to serve as the forum for claims against the state, providing, inter alia, that the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine    [a]ll claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort, if a like cause of action would lie against a private person or corporation in a civil suit. 705 ILCS 505/8(d) (West 2004). This court has had numerous occasions to consider whether a particular tort action is against the State and, therefore, must be brought in the Court of Claims. As a result, the rules governing this inquiry are well established. See, e.g., Fritz v. Johnston, 209 Ill.2d 302, 282 Ill.Dec. 837, 807 N.E.2d 461 (2004); Jinkins v. Lee, 209 Ill.2d 320, 282 Ill.Dec. 787, 807 N.E.2d 411 (2004); Currie v. Lao, 148 Ill.2d 151, 170 Ill.Dec. 297, 592 N.E.2d 977 (1992); Healy v. Vaupel, 133 Ill.2d 295, 140 Ill.Dec. 368, 549 N.E.2d 1240 (1990). Whether an action is one against the state does not depend on the identification of the parties but, rather, on the issues involved and the relief sought. Thus, plaintiffs cannot evade the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims by naming a servant or agent of the state as the nominal defendant when the State of Illinois is the real party in interest. Healy, 133 Ill.2d at 308, 140 Ill.Dec. 368, 549 N.E.2d 1240. When the issue involved is the alleged negligence of a state employee, the mere fact that he was acting within the scope of his employment is not sufficient to make the state the real party in interest. Currie, 148 Ill.2d at 158, 170 Ill.Dec. 297, 592 N.E.2d 977. The proper inquiry is to determine the source of the duty the state employee is charged with breaching. Where the alleged negligence is the breach of a duty imposed on the employee solely by virtue of his state employment, the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction. If, however, the duty that he is accused of breaching is imposed independently of his state employment, the claim may be heard in circuit court. Currie, 148 Ill.2d at 159, 170 Ill.Dec. 297, 592 N.E.2d 977. Thus, this court concluded that a State employee who breaches a duty he owes regardless of his State employment is no more entitled to immunity than is a private individual who breaches that same duty. Currie, 148 Ill.2d at 160, 170 Ill.Dec. 297, 592 N.E.2d 977. As to the relief sought, an action naming a state employee as defendant will be found to be a claim against the state where a judgment for the plaintiff could operate to control the actions of the State or subject it to liability. Currie, 148 Ill.2d at 158, 170 Ill.Dec. 297, 592 N.E.2d 977. We must, therefore, determine whether a veterinarian employed as a member of the faculty at a state university is bound by a duty of care that arises independently of his state employment. We must also determine whether a judgment against such a defendant could operate to control the actions of the state or subject it to liability.