Thomason v. United States

Decision Date21 August 1950
Docket NumberNo. 12400.,12400.
Citation184 F.2d 105
PartiesTHOMASON et al. v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

L. Charles Gay, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., Keith R. Ferguson, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Leavenworth Colby, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., C. Elmer Collett, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges, and McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.

ORR, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to a written contract of employment appellants worked as seamen aboard tugboats operated by the United States during World War II in the European Theatre of Operations. They had a civil service status. Appellants sued, alleging a breach of contract in that the United States had failed to pay overtime and bonus amounts claimed to be due. Jurisdiction was alleged to exist under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (20), now 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2401, 2402.

The trial court dismissed the action. We think the judgment of dismissal should be sustained upon the ground that exclusive jurisdiction of wage suits by civil service employees of the United States serving as seamen on its public vessels is under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 781-790, and the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 741-752. These Acts have a two-year limitation. The suit was filed after the expiration of that time and, hence, was too late.

As we read the decisions dealing with the Public Vessels Act, there seems to have been an increasing recognition of the greater breadth of its scope as different jurisdictional questions have been presented. It was at first thought to apply almost exclusively to collision cases. See, O'Neal v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 1925, 11 F.2d 869; Dobson v. United States, 2 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 807. This theory has been discarded and we find jurisdiction to have been upheld in a case involving property damage caused by the negligent operation of a public vessel by its crew. Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 1945, 324 U.S. 215, 65 S.Ct. 639, 89 L.Ed. 901. In this case it was said that "the Public Vessels Act was intended to impose on the United States the same liability (apart from seizure or arrest under a libel in rem) as is imposed by the admiralty law on the private shipowner * *." 324 U.S. 228, 65 S.Ct. 646. In the case of American Stevedores, Inc., v. Porello, 1947, 330 U.S. 446, 67 S.Ct. 847, 91 L.Ed. 1011, recovery was awarded to a stevedore who had been injured while working aboard a public vessel in port by the fall of a beam which, through the negligence of the United States, had not been securely locked in place. The case of United States v. Loyola, 9 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 126, held the Public Vessels Act sufficiently broad to cover an action for maintenance and cure by a seaman who had contracted tuberculosis during a voyage on a public vessel. See also, Mandel v. United States, D.C.E.D.Pa., 1947, 74 F.Supp. 754. Finally, the Act has been held to cover wage claims similar to those asserted in the instant case. Jentry v. United States, D.C. S.D.Cal., 1947, 73 F.Supp. 899.

The sustaining of jurisdiction under the Public Vessels Act in other than collision cases is in accord with the evident purpose of Congress to provide for the adjudication of seaman controversies in the admiralty courts. Pursuant to that purpose, Congress has passed two complementary jurisdictional statutes, the Suits in Admiralty Act for cases where the public vessel involved is employed as a merchant vessel, and the Public Vessels Act where the vessel is employed exclusively as a public vessel. It is a rational interpretation to say that in providing a forum for the adjudication of maritime claims uniformity was sought. To hold that seamen's wage claims are not justiciable under the Public Vessels Act would not diminish the liability of the United States for such claims, but would merely transfer the adjudication of all such claims to jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, thereby defeating the policy of uniformity. Cf. American Stevedores, Inc., v. Porello, 1947, 330 U.S. 446, 453, 67 S.Ct. 847, 91 L.Ed. 1011.

It is said that the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 781, imposes liability only for "damages caused by a public vessel," and that this language limits the scope of the Act to actions in tort and excludes actions in contract. This contention overlooks the common usage of the word "damages" as meaning compensation in money for any loss or injury. See American Stevedores, Inc., v. Porello, 1947, 330 U.S. 446, 450 note 6, 67 S.Ct. 847, 850. Since it is clearly settled that the loss or injury for which damages are claimed need not be "caused" by the ship in the sense that the ship is the physical instrument creating the harm, as in a collision, the meaning of the requirement that the damages be "caused" by the ship is that the damages must have arisen out of the possession or operation of the ship. The phrase includes damages arising from those acts for which a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Allison v. United States, 507-69.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 15 Octubre 1971
    ...v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888); and Thomason v. United States, 85 F.Supp. 742 (N.D.Cal.1948), aff'd, 184 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1950). Government employment is not a contract, is not property and the due process clause of the Constitution does not apply. Bailey v. Rich......
  • Chambers v. United States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 15 Octubre 1971
    ...constitutes such an officer. Id. at 307, 8 S.Ct. at 506 In Thomason v. United States, 85 F. Supp. 742, 743 (N.D.Cal.1948), aff'd 184 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1950), the court said: * * * The United States Supreme Court and inferior Federal Courts have frequently been called upon to decide who are......
  • Hopkins v. United States, 342-72.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 19 Marzo 1975
    ...v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 8 S.Ct. 505, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888); and Thomason v. United States, 85 F.Supp. 742 (N.D.Cal.1948), aff'd, 184 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1950). Government employment is not a contract, is not property and the due process clause of the Constitution does not apply. Bailey v. Richa......
  • Shaver Transp. Co. v. United States, Case No. 3:12–cv–01448–SI.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • 5 Junio 2013
    ...The Ninth Circuit, however, has rejected such a narrow reading of the PVA's waiver of sovereign immunity. See Thomason v. United States, 184 F.2d 105, 107–08 (9th Cir.1950). Other courts have cast doubt on Thomason's interpretation of the PVA. The Eleventh Circuit noted that Thomason was de......
  • 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