Gilroy v. United States, Civ. No. 2045-51.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2045-51. |
| Citation | 112 F. Supp. 664 |
| Parties | GILROY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Alvin L. Newmyer, and Alvin L. Newmyer, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Robert M. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
This is an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq. for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the result of a fall on a broken part of the curb on Constitution Avenue between 20th and 21st Streets, in the City of Washington.
The suit is brought against the United States rather than against the District of Columbia because Constitution Avenue is under the control of the United States through the National Park Service, and the duty to keep the sidewalks and the paving on that street in repair rests on the United States and not upon the District of Columbia.
The law of the District of Columbia holds the municipality to a very high degree of liability for damages resulting from failure to maintain the streets of the city in a reasonably safe condition. The District of Columbia is under a duty to keep the pavement and the sidewalks of the streets of this city in a reasonably safe condition. Even a small depression in the sidewalk might give rise to liability, if such a depression causes damage.
The United States claims, however, that it should not be held to the same high degree of liability as a municipal corporation in respect to the sidewalks which the United States controls. This argument is based upon the provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act to the effect that the United States shall be liable in respect to tort claims in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, U.S.Code, Title 28, Section 2674.
It is argued by counsel for the United States that the United States, therefore, is not liable as a municipal corporation would be but only as a private individual under similar circumstances, and that a private individual would not be liable to an ordinary passerby, who is a licensee.
The purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act was to abrogate the immunity of the United States against suit in tort. Its purpose was to make the United States liable to suit in tort in the same manner as anyone else. Unlike other statutes waiving governmental immunity, the Federal Tort Claims Act should be liberally construed in order to effectuate the purpose that was intended by its framers. The words, "as a private individual", are not used as words of art or as a limitation, but, rather, in a descriptive manner to indicate that the United States should be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as anyone else. A municipal corporation may be considered for the purposes of that provision as a private individual, and, therefore, it is the view of this Court that the liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yanhko v. Fane
...their recovery from commercial landowners. Blaine v. United States, 102 F.Supp. 161, 164--65 (E.D.Tenn.1951); Gilroy v. United States, 112 F.Supp. 664, 666 (D.D.C.1953); Love v. Clam Box, Inc., 35 Misc.2d 436, 232 N.Y.S.2d 924, 925 (Sup.Ct.1962); Cooley v. Makse, 46 Ill.App.2d 25, 196 N.E.2......
-
Ray v. United States
...414; Phillips v. United States, D.C.E.D.Tenn., 102 F.Supp. 943; Brown v. United States, D.C.S.D.W.Va., 99 F.Supp. 685; Gilroy v. United States, D.C.D.C., 112 F.Supp. 664; Beasley v. United States, D.C.E.D.S.C., 81 F.Supp. 518; Lem v. United States, D.C.D.C., 89 F.Supp. 915; White v. United ......
-
Anderson v. Cornejo
...after the FTCA became law, courts were already construing "private individual" to include municipalities. See Gilroy v. United States, 112 F.Supp. 664, 665-66 (D.D.C.1953). At least two appellate court cases have held that state tort law applicable to local governmental employees may apply ......
-
LaPATOUREL v. United States
...of the Government. Id. at 880-81. Judge Holtzoff, the author of McNamara, had previously expressed a similar view in Gilroy v. United States, 112 F.Supp. 664 (D.D.C.1953). Gilroy, like McNamara, was a tort suit based upon the general proprietary interests of the United States, as opposed to......