Lomax v. United States

Decision Date23 October 1957
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 22634.
Citation155 F. Supp. 354
PartiesBruce LOMAX, a minor, by Pauline Lomax, his guardian and Pauline Lomax in her own right v. UNITED STATES of America.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David N. Rosen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Harold K. Wood, U. S. Atty., Henry P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

EGAN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the action was not brought against the United States within the time fixed by statute.1

On May 20, 1957, plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter with the Clerk of the United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Service of the complaint was made on May 23, 1957, by serving a copy thereof on the United States Attorney for the Eastern District and by mailing a copy thereof to the Attorney General. The complaint named the "United States Post Office Department" as party-defendant, alleging that the minor plaintiff, Bruce Lomax, had been injured as a result of the negligent operation of a Post Office vehicle by a postal employee who was then engaged in the performance of his duties. The alleged accident occurred on May 21, 1955, one day less than two years prior to the filing of the complaint.

Early in June, 1957, the United States Attorney advised plaintiff's counsel that by virtue of 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b) and 2679, the action was improperly brought against the Post Office Department since said Department, or any agency of the Government, cannot be sued under the Tort Claims Act eo nomine, and that the proper defendant under that statute is the United States of America. Subsequently, the United States Attorney and counsel for the plaintiff entered into a stipulation amending the complaint, whereby the "United States of America" was substituted as party-defendant in place of the "United States Post Office Department". The stipulation was executed on July 12, 1957 and was filed with the Clerk of the Court on the 19th of that month—more than two years after the cause of action accrued.

The basis of defendant's Motion to Dismiss is the lack of jurisdiction by this Court, the defendant alleging that the statute of limitations controlling this action has already run.

Although normally the defense of the statute of limitations must be affirmatively pleaded, it is well settled that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the defense may be raised by a Motion to Dismiss. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b), 28 U.S.C.A.; Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway, D.C.Md. Pa.1956, 146 F.Supp. 926; Foote v. Public Housing Commissioner, D.C.W.D. Mich.1952, 107 F.Supp. 270; Sikes v. United States, D.C.E.D.Pa.1948, 8 F.R. D. 34, 35; 2 Moore, Federal Practice, pars. 8.28, 12.10 (2d.ed. 1948), par. 12.10 (Supp.1956).

Section 2679 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. states:

"The authority of any federal agency to sue and be sued in its own name shall not be construed to authorize suits against such federal agency on claims which are cognizable under Section 1346(b) of this title, and the remedies provided by this title * * * shall be exclusive."

Thus there can be no question but that a suit arising under the Tort Claims Act must be brought against the United States of America and cannot be brought against the federal agency allegedly responsible for the tort. Schetter v. Housing Authority of City of Erie, D.C. W.D.Pa.1955, 132 F.Supp. 149; Wickman v. Inland Waterways Corp., D.C. Minn.1948, 78 F.Supp. 284.

In this case, plaintiff instituted the action against the "United States Post Office Department" and subsequently amended the complaint by stipulation naming the United States of America as party-defendant. The question at this point involves the propriety of the said amendment in view of the fact that it did not bring the United States into the action until more than two years from the accrual of the cause of action had passed.

Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b) governs the time within which an action in tort may be brought against the United States.

"A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after such claim accrues * * *".

The defendant properly contends that since the United States of America was not brought into the action within two years after the accrual of the cause of action, this Court cannot maintain jurisdiction.

Ordinarily, statutes of limitation do not confer any right of action but are enacted to restrict the period within which the right, otherwise unlimited, might be asserted, and as such are procedural. However, the statute of limitations governing the instant case must be considered substantive in that it is part of the statute creating the cause of action. Foote v. Public Housing Commissioner, D.C.W.D.Mich.1952, 107 F.Supp. 270. In that case the Court said at page 272:

"The provision of 28 U.S.C.A., § 2401(b) that a tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after the claim accrues, is not merely a procedural requirement but limits the substantive rights created by the Federal Tort Claims Act."

See Sikes v. United States, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1948, 8 F.R.D. 34, 35.

In Simon v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 703, the Court cited 34 Am.Jur. "Limitations on Actions", Sec. 7 approvingly.

"A statute of limitations should be differentiated from conditions which are annexed to a right of action created by statute. A statute which in itself created a new liability, gives an action to enforce it unknown to the common law, and fixes the time within which that action may be commenced, is not a statute of limitations. It is a statute of creation, and the commencement of the action within the time it fixes is an indispensable condition of the liability and of the action which it permits. The time element of the right so created, and the limitation of the remedy is a limitation of the right. * * * The statute is an offier of an action on condition that it be commenced within the specified time. If the offer is not accepted in the only way in which it can be accepted, by commencement of the action within the specified time, the action and the right of action no longer exist, and the defendant is exempt from liability."

And in the 1957 Cumulative Supplement:

"Generally speaking, the time requirement prescribed by a statute granting the right to sue the United States or a State is construed as a condition or qualification of the right; such provision is in other words jurisdictional rather than a mere statute of limitations."

Thus it is clear that in the instant case the provisions of Section 2401(b) cannot be construed to operate merely as a period of limitation, but must be interpreted as conditioning the liability created. Munro v. United States, 1937, 303 U.S. 36, 58 S.Ct. 421, 82 L.Ed. 633; Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., 1925, 268 U.S. 638, 45 S.Ct. 633, 69 L.Ed. 1129; Reid v. United States, 1909, 211 U.S. 529, 29 S.Ct. 171, 53 L.Ed. 313; Finn v. United States, 1887, 123 U.S. 227, 8 S.Ct. 82, 31 L.Ed. 128; Simon v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 703; United States ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 1925, 56 App.D.C. 46, 8 F.2d 907; Florentine v. Landon, D.C.S.D.Cal.1953, 114 F.Supp. 452; Berry v. Heller, D.C.E.D.Pa.1948, 79 F.Supp. 476; Keil v. United States, D.C.D.Md. 1946, 65 F.Supp. 431.

If the statute were merely procedural, no problem would have arisen. As such, an amendment merely correcting the name of the party defendant would have been proper and would have related back to the date of the original complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c); Mellon v. Weiss, 1926, 270 U.S. 565, 46 S.Ct. 378, 70 L.Ed. 736; United States v. A. H. Fischer Lumber Co., 4 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 872; Clinchfield R. Co. v. Dunn, 6 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 586; Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway, D.C.M.D.Pa.1956, 146 F.Supp. 926; Kerner v. Rackmill, D.C.M.D.Pa.1953, 111 F.Supp. 150; Florentine v. Landon, D.C.S.D.Cal.1953, 114 F.Supp. 452; Sechrist v. Palshook, D.C.W.D.Pa.1951, 97 F.Supp. 505; Godfrey v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates, D.C.D.Mass.1947, 71 F. Supp. 175; Sanders v. Metzger, D.C.E.D. Pa.1946, 66 F.Supp. 262.

However, the remedy relied upon in the instant case is a statutory remedy and must be subject to the conditions imposed by Congress relating to the limitation of the action. The plaintiff having instituted his claim against the United States subsequent to the running of the statute has not met the conditions of the Tort Claims Act and therefore should be precluded from going forward with this action.

But the plaintiff contends that the stipulation amending the complaint operated as a waiver to defense of the statute of limitations...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Ryan v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 11, 2002
    ...1990) (citing Sprecher v. Graber, 716 F.2d 968 (3d Cir.1983); Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56 (7th Cir.1982)); Lomax v. United States, 155 F.Supp. 354, 356 (E.D.Pa.1957). This is because the FTCA allows a plaintiff to bring an action against the United States that alleges that the acts......
  • Frey v. Woodard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • December 12, 1979
    ...Missouri Bank South v. United States, 423 F.Supp. at 577, Trepina v. Wood, 227 F.Supp. 726, 727 (D.Mont.1964), Lomax v. United States, 155 F.Supp. 354, 357 (E.D.Pa. 1957). Failure to comply with the statutory directive deprives the court of jurisdiction. West v. United States, 592 F.2d at 4......
  • Quinton v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 14, 1962
    ...States, supra; United States ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, supra; Harrison v. The Beverly Lynn, 172 F.Supp. 719 (D.C.1959); Lomax v. United States, 155 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Pa.1957); Florentine v. Landon, 114 F.Supp. 452 (S.D.Cal. 1953); Foote v. Public Housing Commissioner of the United States, 107 ......
  • Robbins v. Esso Shipping Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 27, 1960
    ...denied 316 U.S. 675, 62 S.Ct. 1046, 86 L.Ed. 1749; Kerner v. Rackmill, D.C. M.D.Pa.1953, 111 F.Supp. 150; Lomax v. United States, D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 155 F. Supp. 354; Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway, D.C.M.D.Pa.1956, 146 F.Supp. In any event, it appears that the plaintiff was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT