Duty v. U.S. Dept. of Interior

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore MERRITT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and WEICK; WEICK
CitationDuty v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 735 F.2d 1012 (6th Cir. 1984)
Decision Date11 June 1984
Docket NumberNos. 83-5379,83-5452,s. 83-5379
PartiesMartha DUTY and Brenda Davis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Defendant-Appellee, Cross- Appellant.

Stephen W. Owens (argued), Paintsville, Ky., Stephen Nick Frazier, Paintsville, Ky., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.

Louis DeFalaise, U.S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., Peter Davenport (argued), Jane E. Graham, Asst. U.S. Attys., for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.

Before MERRITT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

Brenda Davis and Martha Duty, Plaintiffs-Appellants, have appealed, and the United States Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee, has cross-appealed to this Court from the judgment of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky awarding Plaintiffs-Appellants damages in this suit filed pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2675.

Brenda Davis was the owner and operator of and Martha Duty was a passenger in a 1975 Ford Pinto automobile that was struck in the rear on September 6, 1979, by a government-owned vehicle driven by Zekie Hensley, an employee of the Department of the Interior. After the accident, Ms. Davis was confined to the hospital for 11 to 12 days, and received treatment and medicines from various doctors thereafter. Her complaints included abdominal soreness, neck pain and lower back pain. Davis was again confined to the hospital for seven days in October, 1979, for her abdominal problems, and subsequently for a longer period in September, 1980, for a decompressive laminectomy and spinal fusion. Ms. Duty was not confined to the hospital as a result of the accident, but received continuing treatment and medicines from various doctors as a result of the collision. Her primary complaint was neck pain resulting from a "whiplash" type of injury.

Each Appellant filed a complaint on November 16, 1981, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. In her complaint, Brenda Davis sought $147,200 for damages consisting of severe and permanent physical injuries, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and the costs of her medical care and treatment. Ms. Davis also sought damages of $1800 for automobile repairs. In her complaint, Martha Duty sought $130,000 for damages consisting of severe and permanent physical injuries, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and the costs of her medical care and treatment.

A bench trial was conducted before District Judge G. Wix Unthank on March 22, 1983. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order filed March 23, 1983, Judge Unthank found that at the time of the accident, both Ms. Davis and Ms. Duty were exercising ordinary care in the performance of their duties, and that Mr. Hensley failed and neglected to exercise ordinary care and perform the duties required of him, such that Mr. Hensley's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the collision and injuries and damages resulting therefrom.

The District Court awarded Brenda Davis the sum of $8758.90 for medical expenses and $8758.90 for pain and suffering experienced as a direct and proximate result of Zekie Hensley's negligence. The Court further found that Ms. Davis did not receive a permanent injury by reason of the accident, but that she did experience substantial pain and suffering, including pain and suffering attributable to the aggravation of her previously existing spondylolisthesis (abnormal curvature of the spine at the tailbone).

The District Court awarded Martha Duty the sum of $1640 for medical expenses and $1640 for pain and suffering experienced as a direct and proximate result of Mr. Hensley's negligence. The Court further found that Ms. Duty did not receive a permanent injury by reason of the accident, and that her age and various previous ailments attributable to age contributed to a minor extent to her pain and suffering.

Final judgment was entered in accordance with Judge Unthank's Memorandum Opinion and Order on May 3, 1983, from which Ms. Davis and Ms. Duty have appealed to this Court.

Brenda Davis and Martha Duty contend that the District Court erred in finding that neither Appellant suffered permanent injury as a result of the collision, and that the District Court erred by improperly apportioning damages with respect to Appellants' pre-existing ailments. On cross-appeal, the government argues that the District Court erred in awarding Brenda Davis medical expenses for stomach ailments which were unrelated to the accident. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we reverse.

I.

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) provides in relevant part:

... the district courts ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, ... for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death 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.

Thus, in this case, the law of the State of Kentucky, where the accident occurred, governs the rights of the parties. See also Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173, 182, 76 S.Ct. 745, 752, 100 L.Ed. 1065 (1956); James v. United States, 467 F.2d 832 (4th Cir.1972).

In Kentucky, one injured by another's negligence is entitled to recover full compensation for all damages proximately resulting from that negligence. Field Packing Co. v. Denham, 342 S.W.2d 524, 526 (Ky.1961). The amount of damages for...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Henley v. Amecher
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2002
    ...Cir. 1995); Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l v. Holden Found. Seeds, Inc., 35 F.3d 1226, 1235 (8th Cir. 1994); Duty v. United States of Am., Dep't of Interior, 735 F.2d 1012, 1015 (6th Cir. 1984). However, the converse is not necessarily true because the concepts of lacking material evidence and being......
  • Beason v. Beason
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1990
    ...Some courts state that a finding which is unsupported by "substantial evidence" is clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Duty v. United States, 735 F.2d 1012, 1015 (CA 6, 1984); Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F.2d 682, 686 (CA 2, 1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 316, 58 L.Ed.2d 322 (19......
  • Leverence v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1990
    ...damages due to bodily injuries and are recoverable. These cases discuss personal injury damages in a general way, see Duty v. United States, 735 F.2d 1012 (6th Cir.1984), and Denaux v. United States, 572 F.Supp. 659 (D.S.C.1983), and permit the cost of the remodeling of a home to accommodat......
  • Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 1, 1988
    ...Heath, 691 F.2d 220 (6th Cir.1982). "Questions raised concerning damages are essentially questions of fact." Duty v. United States Dept. of Interior, 735 F.2d 1012 (6th Cir.1984). Keeping these rules in mind, it would seem that a reasonable jury could have awarded the amount that it did. Th......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 9 STANDARDS OF REVIEW ON APPEAL
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...Thus, an appellate court should only reverse a trial court's fact-findings if substantial evidence is lacking; Duty v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 735 F.2d 1012, 1015 (6th Cir. 1984); or if the reviewing court "is left with the impression that the [findings are] not the truth and right of the c......