McDonald v. Government of the District of Columbia, 12285.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1955
• Docket Number: No. 12285.,12285.
• Citation: McDonald v. Government of the District of Columbia, 221 F.2d 860, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 305 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
• Parties: Charles B. McDONALD, Appellant, v. The GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

95 US App. DC 305, 221 F.2d 860 (1955)

Charles B. McDONALD, Appellant, v. The GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

No. 12285.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued January 21, 1955.

Decided February 10, 1955.

Petition for Rehearing Denied March 11, 1955.

Mr. Wesley E. McDonald, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. B. Austin Newton, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Harry L. Walker, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Mr. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, Mr. Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and Mr. Ralph D. Quinter, Jr., Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Milton D. Korman, Asst. Corporation Counsel, also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant McDonald and his wife sued the District of Columbia for an alleged accident caused by a defect in the streets. They served a written notice on the Commissioners of the District, stating that the accident occurred on May 14, 1953, in front of 2024 — 14th Street, N. W., the defect being on the side of the residence which fronted on V Street, N. W. Later they wrote a second letter, addressed to the Inspector of Claims, D. C., saying they had been in error in reporting the fall as having occurred May 14th; that it actually occurred on May 3rd. Both of those letters were dispatched within six months of May 3rd. Also within that six-month period the McDonalds advised an Assistant Corporation Counsel orally that the place of the accident was 2024 Fourteenth Street, Southeast, on the side of the residence which abuts V Street, Southeast. Fourteenth and V Streets, Northwest, is a number of miles, perhaps five, from Fourteenth and V Streets, Southeast, in the District of Columbia.

A District statute provides:

"No action shall be maintained against the District of Columbia for unliquidated damages to person or property unless the claimant within six months after the injury or damage was sustained, he, his agent, or attorney gave notice in writing to the commissioners of the District of Columbia of the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances of such injury or damage: Provided, however, That a report in writing by the Metropolitan police department, in regular course of duty, shall be regarded as a sufficient notice under the above provision."¹

Neither the McDonalds, their agents, nor their attorney gave notice in writing to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia of the place of the injury within six months after the injury. The District Court held the action could not be maintained and therefore dismissed it.

Appellant argues that the court must give effect to the spirit and intent of the statute, which, he says, were to insure merely that the District has notice of an injury within six months of its alleged occurrence. But, where a statute is clear and unambiguous and is specific in the details of its requirements as to the maintenance of an action against the Government, the courts are not at liberty to construe the statute other than according to its terms, or to depart from its clear requirements.

The order of the District Court is

Affirmed.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

Appellant, Charles B. McDonald, alleges that he was injured on May 3, 1953, under circumstances which he claims make the District of Columbia liable.

Pursuant to Title 12, Section 208, of the D.C.Code 1951, quoted in the majority opinion, appellant's attorney addressed a letter, dated September 21, 1953, to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, making claim. This letter, of course, was well within the period of six months referred to in the statute. The letter contained two errors: (1) the correct location of the accident was not given, "Northwest" being used instead of "Southeast", and (2) the correct date of the accident was not given.

By letter dated September 24, 1953, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia acknowledged appellant's letter and stated that the "letter has been referred to the Corporation Counsel for consideration". Within a few days after counsel for appellant received the letter of September 24, 1953, a representative from the investigating section of the office of the Corporation Counsel contacted counsel for appellant at his office to discuss the matter, and at that time that representative...