Collazo v. United States
| Citation | 372 F. Supp. 61 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 1098-72. |
| Parties | Aurea Colon COLLAZO and Horacio O. Morales, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Heriberto Febus Bernardini, Rio Piedras, P. R., for plaintiffs.
Julio Morales-Sanchez, U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., for defendant.
This Federal Tort Claims Act's cause is before the Court upon defendant's motion to dismiss coplaintiff Horacio O. Morales' action predicated on the allegation that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain at present his action.
Coplaintiff Horacio O. Morales claims damages allegedly suffered by him because of an accident directly suffered by his wife (coplaintiff Aurea Colón Collazo) due allegedly to defendant's negligence. Defendant asserts Mr. Morales has not filed an administrative claim in relation to his claim and that, therefore, has no standing to sue before this Court. Such assertion stems from the proposition that under Section 2675(a)1 of the Federal Torts Claim Act, it is required that before a tort action is filed against the United States of America, an administrative claim be filed with the appropriate agency; and that a failure to so do is an absolute bar toward bringing a civil action in tort against it before a Federal court, for under such circumstances, a claimant will be without standing to prosecute suit against it. Furthermore, defendant asserts that plaintiff's action is deficient insofar as he fails to allege in the complaint that he has presented his claim to the appropriate Federal agency and that there has been a final disposition of the claim by the involved agency.
Mr. Morales, in his opposition to defendant's motion, proposes that Section 2675(a) of Title 28, United States Code, does not require a person other than the one directly injured to file said claim. He further alleges that the required administrative claim was filed by his wife for the direct injuries suffered by her. Accordingly, he asserts that the administrative agency has been properly notified of the accident (by his wife's claim), that the goal and objectives of the involved Section have been met and that said Section should be restrictively constructed so as to allow his present claim.
The Court, after fully studying the propositions of the parties is of the opinion that defendant's motion is well taken and that, accordingly, it should be granted.
By enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28, United States Code, Section 2671 et seq., the United States of America has granted express consent to be sued; thus waiving its sovereign immunity. In so doing, it may define the conditions and limitations under which such suits are permitted. Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484, 501, 87 S. Ct. 1188, 18 L.Ed.2d 244 (1967); Peterson v. United States (8 Cir. 1970), 428 F.2d 368; Battaglia v. United States (2 Cir. 1962), 303 F.2d 683, 685.
Having the United States of America seen fit to impose conditions and limitations on the right to be sued, as reflected by the statute herein involved, these must be observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied. Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276, 77 S.Ct. 269, 1 L.Ed.2d 306 (1957); Hamilton v. Nakai (9 Cir. 1972), 453 F. 2d 152, 159; Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States (D.C.N.Y.1967), 275 F. Supp....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reilly v. US
...v. United States, 74 F.R.D. 555 (W.D.Pa.1977); Green v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 641, 642-44 (S.D.Cal.1974); Collazo v. United States, 372 F.Supp. 61, 61-63 (D.P.R.1973). As the court noted in Johnson, supra, "to preserve her right to bring a derivative but separate FTCA action in this co......
-
Barcelo v. Brown
...requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (C.A. 3, 1971); Collazo v. United States, 372 F.Supp. 61 (D.P.R.1973). Plaintiffs have made no allegation nor presented any evidence to show compliance with this The consequence of this situat......
-
Walker v. United States, 77-47-Civ-Oc.
...the administrative claim of the other spouse. See Heaton v. United States, 383 F.Supp. 589, 590-91 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Collazo v. United States, 372 F.Supp. 61-62 (D.P.R.1973). In short, one spouse may not rely on the administrative claim of another spouse. Plaintiff Julian Walker, however, con......
-
Gordon H. Ball, Inc. v. United States, Civ. No. R-78-0116 BRT.
...saw fit to impose. See Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276, 77 S.Ct. 269, 1 L.Ed.2d 306 (1957); Collazo v. United States, 372 F.Supp. 61, 62 (D.Puerto Rico, 1973). The courts should not lose sight, however, of the broadly remedial purposes the Act was intended to serve, and at least......