Miller v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 60-388-J,60-386-J. |
| Citation | 196 F. Supp. 613 |
| Parties | Max MILLER and Ruth Miller v. UNITED STATES of America. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Raymond F. Barrett, Quincy, Mass., for Max Miller and another.
George P. Lordan, Cambridge, Mass., for Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
Elliot L. Richardson, U. S. Atty., James W. Noonan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for United States.
The plaintiffs, Max Miller and Ruth Miller, husband and wife, bring suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b), to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an employee of the defendant.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, claiming to be the assignee of Ruth Miller and also to be subrogated to her rights, brings its action under the same Act to recover for the damage done to her automobile.
The United States counterclaims against Max Miller for the damage done to the government vehicle.
All these claims arise from the same automobile accident.
The United States denies that its employee was negligent and further alleges that Max Miller was himself guilty of contributory negligence in the operation of Ruth Miller's automobile and that his negligence was imputable to Ruth Miller and that therefore neither they nor Fireman's Fund Insurance Company are entitled to recover.
The defendant admits that at the time of the accident its automobile was being operated by its employee while acting within the scope of his employment.
The accident happened on March 31, 1960, at about 10 p. m. at the intersection of Washington Street and Peach Street, both public ways in the town of Braintree, Massachusetts. Washington Street, also designated as route 37, is a macadam highway approximately 40 feet wide from curb to curb, running north-south, and is divided into four traffic lanes. Solid white lines along the center of the roadway separate the two northbound lanes from the two southbound lanes. Peach Street runs easterly from Washington Street into the residential area in which Max and Ruth Miller have their home. Peach Street does not cross Washington Street and there are no side streets on the westerly side of Washington Street opposite Peach Street. Washington Street runs moderately upgrade from a point a few hundred feet south of Peach Street to a point about 200 feet north of Peach Street.
By agreement of the parties the Court took a view of the scene of the accident.
The cars involved in the accident were a 1959 Plymouth sedan owned by Ruth Miller and a 1956 station wagon of the United States Coast Guard.
At the time of the collision Ruth Miller's car was being operated by her husband, Max Miller. She was riding in the front seat next to him. Mrs. Miller is herself a licensed driver and has had considerable experience in the operation of an automobile. "I would drive to Florida and back," she testified, "and not think anything of it." She is 43 years old. Her husband is 71. The government car was being operated by a United States Coast Guardsman named Pallotta.
Max and Ruth Miller are officers and employees of a corporation that operates a large beauty shop in Quincy, Massachusetts, about five miles from the scene of the accident. Each owns one half of all the stock of the corporation. Mrs. Miller was paid a salary of $175 a week. She did extensive promotional publicity for the business and is an alert and capable woman.
On the evening of the accident Mr. and Mrs. Miller worked at the beauty shop until a little after 9:30 and then left for home in Ruth Miller's car. The husband drove and Mrs. Miller was seated in front next to him. They traveled south on Washington Street. They approached the Peach Street intersection at a reasonable rate of speed. From a point about 100 feet north of Peach Street the operator of a car moving south on Washington Street has an unobstructed view of the entire width of Washington Street for a distance of nearly a quarter of a mile. An operator moving north on Washington Street toward Peach Street has an unobstructed view of southbound traffic for the same distance.
Max Miller testified in substance as follows: When he reached a point about 100 feet from Peach Street he eased over toward the lane nearest the center line and upon reaching the intersection came to a full stop. He intended to make a left turn into Peach Street. He stopped the car on his "right-hand side of the road" headed directly south. The left wheels of the car were about a foot west of the center line. When his car had come to a stop he saw another car coming in the opposite direction towards him. Its headlights were on. It was then 700 or 800 feet away and going 65 or 70 miles an hour,—certainly not less than 65. There was nothing to obstruct Max Miller's view. There were no other cars ahead of him. The other car was not proceeding in a straight course. The headlights were going from one side of the road to the other. In about 5 or 6 seconds the other car was within 20 feet from the Miller car. The other car swayed over to Miller's side of the road and struck the Miller car. The right front of the government car hit the right front of the Miller car. When the cars collided the Miller car was moved about 2 or 3 feet, a little to the right and to the rear. The other car bounced in the air and landed across the road on the other driver's right.
Mrs. Miller testified in substance that her car came to a stop. She first saw the other car when it was about 600 feet away. Its lights were not coming steadily forward but went somewhat from side to side. It then came over to her side of the road and struck. She was thrust forward and downward by the impact and her mouth struck the dashboard. Nine of her upper teeth were knocked out or broken and she sustained other injuries.
Mr. Miller's injuries were not severe.
I do not accept the plaintiffs' version of the accident as true. I find it improbable in many respects and it does not accord with physical facts established by reliable and disinterested witnesses who came on the scene immediately after the accident. The debris that fell on the roadway from the damaged parts of the two automobiles at the time of the collision was found entirely on Pallotta's side of the road as far as 6 feet from the center line. The skid mark made by the government vehicle extending from the approximate point of collision southward for a distance of about 43 feet was also entirely within Pallotta's side of the road and about 6 feet from the center line.
At the time of the accident it was dark. Max Miller testified that it was a dry night, that the roadway was dry, and that the windshield wipers on the Miller car were not in operation. I find that it was drizzling, there was haze, and the roadway was wet. Pallotta had his windshield wipers in operation.
It is undisputed that the right front corner of the Coast Guard car struck the right front corner of the Miller car. The damage done to both cars was substantial.
Pallotta, who was driving the Coast Guard car, was coming from Brockton, where he was stationed, and was going north on his way to Boston when he collided with the Miller car. As he approached the Peach Street intersection he was straddling the two northbound lanes.
I find upon all the evidence that Pallotta was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial cause of the collision. He approached the intersection at a rate of speed that was greater than was reasonable and proper in the circumstances. When he saw the Miller car moving toward the center line to make a left turn into Peach Street he applied the brakes, but because of his excessive speed he did not succeed in stopping in time to avoid the collision. His attempt to circumvent the Miller car by turning left at the last moment accounts for the fact that it was the right front corner of both cars that came into contact.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' testimony, I find that the Miller car did not come to a stop when it reached the intersection. As it moved toward the center line and reached the intersection preparatory to making a left turn, its speed, which had been moderate, was reduced to less than 10 miles an hour. Then, without having given any signal indicating his intention to make a left turn,1 he initiated the left turn, entered the northbound side of Washington Street, and moved into the path of the rapidly approaching Coast Guard car. Max Miller's view of traffic coming from the south on Washington Street was unobstructed and the headlights of the government vehicle were plainly visible. If Max Miller had exercised reasonable care he would have known that when he was about to initiate the left turn the other car was too close and approaching him too fast to permit him to make the turn without incurring an unreasonable risk of injury to himself and his wife. He should have refrained from entering into Pallotta's side of the road. He should have waited. This he failed to do. I find upon all the evidence that the plaintiff Max Miller was guilty of negligence which contributed substantially to the happening of the accident and to the resulting injuries to himself and his wife.
With reference to the operation of her car by her husband from their place of work in Quincy to Peach Street on the evening of the accident, Mrs. Miller testified in substance that she gave him no directions as to speed, manner of driving, what route to take, or where to turn; that they were returning to their home from work; that her husband knew the way; that there was no necessity or occasion to tell him how to get there or how fast or slow he should go; that he was driving neither too fast nor too slow.
I find that the automobile was not being used solely for Max Miller's purposes or benefit, but for Mrs. Miller's as well. It was...
To continue reading
Request your trial