United States v. Hainline, 7118.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7118.,7118. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Thelma Louise HAINLINE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
David L. Rose, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Joseph D. Guilfoyle, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., and Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington D. C., with him on the brief), for appellant.
O. J. Connell, Jr., El Dorado, Kan., for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought, under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act,1 to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff when an airplane, flown by Lieutenant Goff, an Air Force officer, struck the motor vehicle she was driving. The plane was owned by the Aero Club at McConnell Air Force Base in Butler County, Kansas. Lieutenant Goff was a member of the club which maintained aircraft for the use of its members on a rental basis. Membership in the club was voluntary, and limited to active and retired military personnel, their dependents, and civilians employed by the Department of Defense. The club is a nonappropriated fund activity of the Air Force, and an instrumentality of the United States. It was alleged that Lieutenant Goff, while flying the plane, "was acting within the scope of his duties and in line of duty as a member of the United States Air Force."
The trial court concluded: "A `member' of the Aero Club is to be considered an `employee' within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act when such member is engaged in the activities and pursuits provided for in the constitution" of the club, and that when a member of the club is engaged in activities and pursuits provided for in the constitution of the club, he is acting within the scope of his employment, thus subjecting the United States to liability under the Act. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, Thelma Hainline, in the sum of $12,467. The question presented by this appeal is whether an Air Force officer, while off duty, and flying, as a member of a nonappropriated, sundry fund activity,2 an airplane which is owned by the club not the government, is acting within the scope of his employment as an officer in the Air Force or as an employee of the activity, so as to subject the United States to liability for his negligence.
There is no material dispute over the controlling facts. The purpose of the Aero Club was to stimulate an interest in aviation, to provide authorized personnel with an opportunity to engage in flying as a recreational activity, at economical rates, and to encourage and develop skill in aeronautic navigation, mechanics and related sciences useful to the Air Force mission. Air Force Regulation 34-14 (April 14, 1959). The activities of the club were limited to off-duty hours of the members, and the club officers were required to fulfill their club duties on their own time. Some of the planes used were borrowed from the Air Force, and others, including the one flown by Lieutenant Goff, were purchased with club funds and on the titles to those planes the club was designated as the owner. The club's income was derived from the dues and initiation fees of members, the sale of flying services, including instruction, the rental of planes, and the sale of gasoline. Lieutenant Goff was a licensed pilot, and on the day of the collision, in which the plaintiff was injured, he obtained the use of a Cessna 172 for a flight at the usual charge of $7.00 per hour. He was not directed by anyone to make the flight, and he was at liberty to utilize his off-duty hours as he saw fit. Flights such as this were his sole responsibility, and he was not accountable to the Air Force or anyone else as to the flying of the plane. He was making a final landing approach at the air field which the club leased when the plane's landing gear struck a truck which was being driven by the plaintiff on a road adjoining the field. The finding that the Lieutenant was negligent and the amount of the judgment are not questioned here.
Under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act the United States is liable for injuries to property or persons "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." As to military and naval forces of the United States "acting within the scope of his office or employment" means "acting in line of duty." 28 U.S. C. § 2671; Hinson v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 178; Leonard v. United States, D.Wyo., 131 F.Supp. 694, aff'd 9 Cir., 235 F.2d 330, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Trump
...Cir. 2010) ("This phrase must be applied according to the law of the state where the alleged tort occurred."); United States v. Hainline , 315 F.2d 153, 155 (10th Cir. 1963) ("In actions brought under the Act, the scope of employment is determined by the state law."); Green v. Hill , 954 F.......
-
Armiger et al. Estates v. United States
...States, means acting in line of duty." The courts have not attempted to draw any precise line between the two terms. See United States v. Hainline, 315 F.2d 153 (C.A. 10), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 895, 84 S.Ct. 172, 11 L.Ed.2d 124 (1963); O'Connell v. United States, 110 F.Supp. 612, 614 (E.D.......
-
Eckles v. United States, 78-71 Civil.
...337 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 918, 93 L.Ed. 1200 (1949), (which is still good law, see United States v. Brown, supra), and United States v. Hainline, 315 F.2d 153 (10th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 895, 84 S.Ct. 172, 11 L.Ed.2d 124 (1963) is misplaced. In Brooks the injured servicemen were on ......
-
Nichols v. U.S., 85-2234
...the state in which the accident occurred. Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857, 76 S.Ct. 100, 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); United States v. Hainline, 315 F.2d 153 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 895, 84 S.Ct. 172, 11 L.Ed.2d 124 (1963).5 28 U.S.C. Sec. ...