Nicholson v. United States, 12521.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12521.,12521. |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 768 |
| Parties | NICHOLSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Dawson Kea, Dublin, Ga., for appellant.
Green B. Everitt, Asst. U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, McCORD, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.
The suit, brought March 6, 1947, under the Federal Tort Claims Act1 was for damages from the loss by fire of plaintiff's barn in February, 1945.
The claim was that the fire was due to, and caused by, the negligence of prisoners of war of the United States and their guard while they were working for plaintiff on his premises pursuant to a written contract with the United States for their labor.
On May 29, 1947, defendant filed its answer, in which, admitting that at the time of the fire the prisoners of war referred to in the complaint were on plaintiff's premises working for him under a contract for prisoner of war labor, it denied the charges of negligence and that it was liable as claimed.
On July 7, 1948, it filed a motion for summary judgment, in which, setting out that plaintiff had procured the labor of prisoners of war by a contract with the United States, it invoked, as precluding recovery, Paragraph 7 thereof.2 Plaintiff, pointing out in its answer to the motion that it was not suing upon the contract but for a tort, urged upon the court that the motion be denied. On July 30, 1948, the district judge entered an order sustaining the motion and giving judgment for the defendant.
Plaintiff is here insisting that the district judge, in ruling as he did, gave a meaning and effect to the contract not intended or carried by it, and misconstrued and misapplied the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The United States, on its part, in addition to the contention made below that Par. 7 of the contract prevents recovery, urges upon our consideration Sec. 2680, 28 U.S. C.A.,3 and insists that this section operates to exclude from the Federal Tort Claims Act, all controversies over contracts and rights arising thereunder or in connection therewith, including claims for damages sounding in tort.
We cannot agree with either of these contentions. The invoked contract provision does not purport to, it does not, deal with a claim for damages for tort of the kind sued on here. It is specifically confined to peculiar classes or kinds of damages, those "which are in excess of those normally occasioned by civil workers of the same class or classes with like experiences at the job". Even as to these, the allowance to be made by the government is "without prejudice to any other rights which the contractor may have". Though, therefore, it is not clear just exactly what kind of damages paragraph 7 is aiming at, it is quite clear that it has no relation to and does not affect a tort claim of the kind sued on here.
Appellee's second contention is no better taken. The provision excepting from the Tort Claims Act "interference with contract rights" has to do not with claims of the kind asserted here, torts committed by persons sustaining contract relations, but with the particular kind of tort described, "interference with contract rights".
In complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Ein Chemical Corporation
...cause of action based upon the entirely different theory of conversion which is not within the area of interdiction. Cf. Nicholson v. United States, 5 Cir., 177 F.2d 768. Such cases as Fletcher v. Veterans Administration, D.C.E.D.Mich., 103 F. Supp. 654, Builders Corporation of America v. U......
-
Midwest Knitting Mills, Inc. v. US
...allegedly invaded by the government's negligence in starting and maintaining the fire. The plaintiff also cites Nicholson v. United States, 177 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1949), a case which arose in Georgia, in which the plaintiff entered into a contract with the government for the labor of prisone......
-
Buscher v. Boning
...persons sustaining contract relations" does not constitute the tort of interference with contract rights) (citing Nicholson v. United States, 177 F.2d 768, 769 (5th Cir. 1949)). We therefore hold that the interference with contract rights exception does not apply to the instant 2. The State......
-
Aleutco Corporation v. United States
...whether the action is one in tort, the nature of the complaint against the United States must be determined. Cf. Nicholson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 768; United States v. Scrinopskie, 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 959; Aktieboleget Bofors v. United States, D.C.D.C.1950, 93 F.Supp. 1......