Martin v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-2289,76-2289
• Citation: 566 F.2d 895
• Parties: Jean MARTIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 895

566 F.2d 895

Jean MARTIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 76-2289.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 4, 1977.

Decided Dec. 22, 1977.

William W. Hodges, Columbia, S. C. (Richard C. Beerman, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellant.

Wistar D. Stuckey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C. (Thomas P. Simpson, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, WINTER, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, ^* Senior District Judge.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Injured when the automobile in which she was returning from lunch collided with an army truck, Jean Martin, an employee of the Fort Jackson PX, brought this damage action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674. If her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, plaintiff's exclusive remedy would be compensation under 5 U.S.C. § 8171, since her salary was paid from nonappropriated funds of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. See 5 U.S.C. § 2105(c). Indeed, plaintiff accepted statutory compensation payments, which had been paid voluntarily, even after she retained counsel and filed suit. She claimed, however, that these payments were made erroneously, and thus did not affect her right to bring a tort action, because she was not injured within the scope of her employment.

The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ¹ It concluded that plaintiff had been injured in the course of her employment, and therefore it ruled that § 8171 provided her exclusive remedy.

Plaintiff appeals from this dismissal, and we reverse. We disagree with the district court's conclusion that, as a matter of law, the lunchbreak accident occurred within the scope of plaintiff's employment. Furthermore we hold that plaintiff's acceptance of compensation payments did not, as a matter of law, preclude her from pursuing tort remedies. We remand the case for a trial on the merits.

I.

The accident from which this action arose occurred at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, on August 22, 1974. Plaintiff was apparently returning to work at the time of the accident, for the collision took place approximately 300 feet from her place of work and the hour allotted for her lunchbreak had nearly elapsed. ²

Under the terms of 5 U.S.C. § 8171, employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, including employees paid from nonappropriated funds of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (5 U.S.C. § 2105(c)), qualify for compensation provided by the Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950, when their injuries arise out of the course of their employment. In addition, 5 U.S.C. § 8173 states that the liability of the United States under this scheme of compensation is exclusive; nonappropriated fund employees whose injuries are covered have no other remedies against the government. Since plaintiff is an employee of the Fort Jackson PX, she cannot maintain this federal tort action unless it be determined that the accident occurred outside the scope of her employment.

Whether a particular injury arises within the scope of employment is a question that defies uniform solutions. Rather, each case turns on a close analysis of its facts. Naturally, the focus is on those facts that bear on the relationship of the injury to the victim's job; for the purpose of compensation statutes is to provide quick, certain relief for work-related injuries. Furthermore, because compensation statutes are given a liberal construction, uncertainties generally are resolved in favor of coverage. Of course, this case presents the converse of the typical situation in which scope of employment is an issue; here, plaintiff is not arguing that her injury comes within the compensation statute, but, instead, that her injury is not covered.

The district court ruled that "(i)njuries sustained while an employee is going to or from lunch arise out of and in the course of employment." This unqualified statement cannot withstand scrutiny. True, there are cases holding that an injury sustained while at lunch occurred within the scope of the injured person's employment. But in each instance there were significant facts that linked the employee's lunchtime injury to the performance of his job. For example, in London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Britton, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 138 F.2d 932 (1943), relied upon by both the defendant and the district court, the employee, who was struck by a car while crossing a street, had been instructed by his supervisor to obtain lunch for his fellow employees. And in Cardillo v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 71 App.D.C. 330, 109 F.2d 674 (1940), the employee was driving a company car when he was injured. By contrast, the court, in Wetzel v. Britton, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 170 F.2d 285 (1948), upheld a finding that an employee who was struck by a bus on her way to lunch was not injured within the scope of her employment where the facts showed that the employer exercised no control over her activities during the lunchbreak. To the same effect are Walker v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 769 (D.Alas.1971); and Troutman v. Williams Furniture Corp., 224 S.C. 353, 79 S.E.2d 374, 376 (1953). Viewed together, these cases refute any suggestion that lunchtime injuries receive uniform dispositions; the outcome in each case depends on its facts. ³

Turning to the instant case, we think that the facts fail to establish a sufficient connection between plaintiff's injury and her job. Plaintiff's lunch hour was her own time. She was unpaid, and there were apparently no restrictions on where she went or what she did so long as she returned on time. She was not performing any errands for her employer on the day of the accident, and she was riding in a privately-owned automobile. Although the accident occurred close to her place of employment and while she was apparently returning to work, those facts are entitled to little weight in determining whether she was injured within the scope of her employment. After all, commuters injured in traveling to or from work are not considered to have been injured within the scope of their employment unless there are special circumstances; that they must travel to their job in order to perform it is not enough. See Bailey v. United States, 451 F.2d 963, 967 (5 Cir. 1971).

II.

Because the district court determined that compensation under 5 U.S.C. § 8171 was plaintiff's exclusive remedy, it did not consider the effect of her acceptance of compensation payments on her right to proceed in tort. Defendant now contends that receipt of these payments bars any tort recovery. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that there should be no estoppel because the defendant voluntarily commenced the compensation payments. Principles of estoppel are implicated by the apparent duplicity in plaintiff's claiming that compensation payments have been made erroneously while at the same time accepting the payments. In essence, the issue...