Lamb v. United States
Decision Date | 24 November 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-238-MAC. |
Parties | Lynda S. LAMB and Fuller Lamb, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Earl T. Smith, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
William H. Major and William B. Brown, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs.
Bernard E. Namie, Macon, Ga., Wilson R. Smith, Lyons, Ga., Denmark Groover, Macon, Ga., for defendants.
On December 10, 1977, Mrs. Lynda S. Lamb, a resident of Twiggs County, Georgia, fell as she was going in the front door of the Danville, Georgia, United States Post Office. The Post Office building is owned by Earl T. Smith, a resident of Twiggs County, Georgia, and leased to the United States.
Georgia law requires that suits for personal injuries must be commenced within two years of the injury. 1933 Ga.Code Ann. § 3-1004. Within that two-year period Mrs. Lamb and her husband, B. Fuller Lamb, commenced a personal injury and loss of consortium lawsuit against Earl T. Smith in the Superior Court of Twiggs County, Georgia. At the same time Mr. and Mrs. Lamb were proceeding administratively against the United States under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., which require presentation of a claim to the federal agency and either final denial of the claim or failure of the agency to finally deny the claim within six months, as a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit against the United States in United States District Court.
On October 31, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Lamb voluntarily dismissed their Superior Court of Twiggs County lawsuit against Earl T. Smith and on November 6, 1980, filed their lawsuit in this court against defendants United States of America and Earl T. Smith alleging that the United States is liable in this court under Georgia law and the consent of the United States to be sued in United States District Court as found in the Federal Tort Claims Act, for the personal injuries and loss of consortium sustained by Mr. and Mrs. Lamb, on account of falling as she entered the Post Office and that Earl T. Smith, also a resident of Twiggs County, Georgia, as owner of the premises is also liable for said personal injuries and loss of consortium. Defendant Earl T. Smith has demanded trial by jury.
At pre-trial this court questioned its jurisdiction over the person of defendant Earl T. Smith since plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Lamb and defendant Mr. Smith are all citizens of Georgia and diversity of citizenship is thus plainly lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties having submitted their briefs of law, the court must decide whether or not it has jurisdiction of the person of defendant Earl T. Smith.
At pre-trial the court noted that plaintiffs' lawsuit was commenced in this court on November 6, 1980, more than two years after Mr. and Mrs. Lamb allege that she fell and they sustained the complained of injuries and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs responded that a statute of the State of Georgia provides:
and that having commenced within the statute of limitations in state court, voluntarily dismissed, and commenced in this court within six months, the statute of limitations was tolled and is not a bar to proceeding in this court. Defendant Smith amended his answer to set forth the statute of limitations as a defense. He asserts that § 3-808 has always been interpreted by Georgia's appellate courts to apply only to courts of the State of Georgia and that it therefore does not apply to an action commenced in a state court, voluntarily dismissed and then commenced in a United States District Court. This question which has also been briefed by the parties will be considered first.
Assuming that the court finds that it has jurisdiction of the person of defendant Earl T. Smith, the cause of action against Mr. Smith will be as it arises under the laws of this state. As to the cause of action and the running of the statute of limitations, plaintiffs and defendants agree with the court that it is a question to be decided under state law the same as it would be if this were a diversity of citizenship case.
In the now famous case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1937 in deciding to what extent state law as passed by its legislature compared to as found in the decisions of the courts of the state applied and controlled in a diversity of citizenship case in a United States District Court, stated:
In 1944 the Supreme Court in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York next determined whether or not the law of the state that must be applied includes the state statute of limitations. The Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byrd v. City of Atlanta
...dismissal for this purpose.") The Georgia savings statute also permits the renewal of the action in this court. Lamb v. United States, 526 F.Supp. 1117, 1126 (M.D.Ga.1981). As defendants admit, the instant action accrued on October 1, 1985 when the Civil Service Board affirmed plaintiff's d......
- United States v. Manbeck
-
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S v. Haulover Marine, Inc., Civ. No. 1994-43.
...424, 427 (D.Wyo.1993); City of Chicago v. Wolf, 1992 WL 92126, *9, 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6035, *26 (N.D.Ill.1992); Lamb v. United States, 526 F.Supp. 1117 (M.D.Ga.1981). 3 In 1984, Congress simplified and consolidated the jurisdictional authorizations for this Court by subsuming various piec......
-
Kline v. United States
...595 F.2d 65 (1st Cir.1979). We have read with particular interest the Ortiz and Stewart cases, supra, and also Lamb v. United States, 526 F.Supp. 1117 (M.D.Ga.1981) because both cases arose under the FTCA, the statute that forms the jurisdictional threshold of the matters now before us. In ......