Lund v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 50-259. |
| Citation | 104 F. Supp. 756 |
| Parties | LUND v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Max S. Ficksman, Sidney Heimberg, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
George F. Garrity, U. S. Atty., Edward F. McLaughlin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for defendant.
This is an action brought under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq., to recover for damage to the personal property of the plaintiff.
The incident out of which the suit arises occurred on September 4, 1948, at the Naval Air Station in Squantum, Massachusetts. The facts are as follows. The plaintiff was on the critical date an Ensign, A-3, U.S.N.R. — O, who was ordered to active duty for fourteen days' training with pay and allowances in accordance with proper United States Navy orders. He was scheduled to take a training flight and, prior to reporting to the "ready room", he parked his automobile in a parking area behind the Bachelor Officers' Quarters. This parking area was between fifty and seventy-five feet from an airplane parking area. Vehicles belonging to other officers were also standing in the designated parking area.
The plaintiff, a duly trained and qualified pilot, testified that it was customary to start the motors of airplanes in the airplane parking area, and to use only such power as was necessary to taxi them away from buildings, vehicles and other property nearby before "revving" the engines. The purpose of using this limited amount of power was to avoid having airplane propeller-wash throw stones and sand against property nearby.
When the plaintiff returned from his flight on the same day he found the surface of his car pitted and dented. Other vehicles around it were in the same condition. The expense incurred in repairing the plaintiff's property amounted to $80.
The only reasonable explanation for the peculiar damage to this vehicle is that some person started an airplane in the airplane parking area, then caused the engine or engines to turn over at such speed that the plane's propeller-wash threw stones and sand against the plaintiff's property which was properly parked in a space designated by the Navy for that purpose. Had the airplane been taxied properly no damage would have occurred.
There has been no evidence as to the identity of the person whose operation of the plane caused the damage. The Air Station, however, was under the Navy's control and direction, and the defendant has offered nothing to counter the inference that the person was an employee of the Government acting within the scope of his employment. Watson v. United States, D.C., 90 F.Supp. 900, 902.
There was a duty upon the defendant to use reasonable care while taxiing planes in the vicinity of the automobile parking area. The defendant failed to use such care and as a result of such failure the damage of which the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoula v. United States
...49, 69 S.Ct. 918, 93 L. Ed. 1200, and the district court cases2 cited by them, as to the personal injuries sustained, and Lund v. United States, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 756, as to the property damages sued for, require a contrary The United States on its part advancing three propositions3 and arr......
-
United States v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 15591.
...holdings upon this issue which we have found are the unreported District Court decision in the present case and Lund v. United States, D.C.D.Mass., 104 F.Supp. 756. We believe that the results reached in the Preferred Insurance Co. case, and the other cited cases reaching the same conclusio......
-
Preferred Insurance Company v. United States
...that the damage does arise out of and occurs in the course of activity incident to the military service of the owner. Lund v. U. S., D.C.Mass.1952, 104 F.Supp. 756 is the only cited case involving property damage which on essential facts similar but not identical to those of the present cas......
-
Curtis v. United States, 3667.
...In the Cerri case the acts of the government's employee were found to be within the scope of his employment. The case of Lund v. U. S., D.C., 104 F.Supp. 756, although not cited by the plaintiff, has come to the Court's attention. It is not deemed an authority which would overcome the defic......