Connor v. United States, 24348

• Decision Date: 21 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 24348,24349.,24348
• Citation: 461 F.2d 1259
• Parties: Joyce Marie CONNOR et al. v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, District of Columbia (two cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

461 F.2d 1259 (1972)

Joyce Marie CONNOR et al. v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,

District of Columbia (two cases).

Nos. 24348, 24349.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 22, 1971.

Decided March 21, 1972.

Mr. Philip L. Cohan, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, John A. Terry and Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellant in No. 24348.

Mr. Ted D. Kuemmerling, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. C. Francis Murphy, Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellant in No. 24349.

Mr. Denver H. Graham, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Roth, Jr., and Albert E. Brault, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and LEVENTHAL and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

This is a tort case taken out of the ordinary only by the fact that the defendant-appellants are the District of Columbia and the United States, and that their positions diverge on questions of allocation of responsibility and jurisdiction.

I.

The District of Columbia appeals from a judgment assessed against it, by virtue of a jury verdict, because of a defect in the sidewalk (protruding brick) which caused plaintiff to stumble. In general, the District of Columbia is like other municipalities in having a duty to repair sidewalks, albeit the obligation of other municipalities is predicated on ownership of the streets, and in the District of Columbia the streets are owned by the United States, with the obligation placed on the District by Federal law.

The District of Columbia appeals from the judgment on the ground that the sidewalk was adjacent to a Federal building. The District claims that a recent statute gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Government of sidewalks adjacent to Federal buildings. The United States takes a different approach as to the effect of the new statute, and so do we.

The statute involved, 40 U.S.C. § 490 (i) (1) (Supp. III, 1965-67) was passed in order to permit the Federal Government to repair sidewalks (adjacent to Federal buildings) and to reimburse city governments which undertook to repair the sidewalks.^* Its main purpose was to permit the Federal Government to be a good neighbor, and to reimburse the city government, like any other property owner, even though it was not constitutionally subject to a municipal "assessment."

The fact that the D.C. Government was able to collect from the Federal Government, by an agreement with GSA, for the cost of repairing sidewalks does not mean it lacked obligation to make the repairs in the first instance, any more than it could...