Reed v. Charizio, Civ. A. No. 712.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 712. |
| Citation | 183 F. Supp. 52 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Arthur REED, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Francis L. CHARIZIO, Defendant. |
Lewis H. Hall, Jr., Newport News, Va., for plaintiff.
W. Worth Martin, Newport News, Va., for defendant.
Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania, has instituted this action against the defendant, a citizen and resident of the State of Connecticut, for injuries allegedly received on April 2, 1958, as a result of the negligence of defendant in the operation of an automobile operated by defendant, in which automobile plaintiff was riding as a passenger, while the vehicle was being driven over and along the Colonial National Parkway, conceded by counsel to be on property owned and maintained by the Federal Government but located entirely within the confines of the State of Virginia. The suit is an original action instituted in this court on February 11, 1960.
Service upon the defendant was obtained pursuant to the terms of the nonresident motorist statute, § 8-67.1 and § 8-67.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, by leaving with the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Commonwealth of Virginia the requisite summons and complaint which, in turn, was forwarded by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the defendant.
Defendant, appearing specially, has filed a motion to dismiss attacking the jurisdiction of the court, and a like motion contending that he is only subject to the jurisdiction of the Connecticut court where he resides. Defendant has also filed a motion to quash the summons alleging that venue has not been acquired or waived.
Undoubtedly jurisdiction exists as the cause of action arose on a Government reservation located entirely within the confines of the State of Virginia. Stokes v. Adair, 4 Cir., 265 F.2d 662, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 816, 80 S.Ct. 56, 4 L.Ed. 2d 62. Moreover, the provisions of 16 U.S.C.A. § 457 would appear to confer a right of action as the Colonial National Parkway is situated within a national park.
That jurisdiction exists does not per se grant venue. Reluctantly we find that Olberding v. Illinois Central R. Co., 346 U.S. 338, 74 S.Ct. 83, 98 L.Ed 39, is controlling. There, in an action instituted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Olberding, the owner of a truck, was on temporary business in Kentucky when the truck collided with an overpass of the railroad, thereby causing a subsequent derailment. The railroad, an Illinois corporation, sued Olberding, a citizen of Indiana, obtaining service of process according to the Kentucky...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abbay v. Aurora Pump Co.
... ... See, e.g. , Reed v. Charizio , 183 F.Supp ... 52, 53 (E.D. Va. 1960) ... ...
-
Goldberg v. Wharf Constructers
...v. Coos Bay Pulp Corp., 147 F.2d 512 (3d Cir. 1945); Knobloch v. M. W. Kellogg Co., 154 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1946). 3 See Reed v. Charizio, 183 F.Supp. 52, 53 (E.D.Va.1960) (Recognizes the inconsistency between Olberding and Knott). 4 Including Holbrook v. Cafiero, 18 F.R.D. 218 (D.Md.1955), c......
-
Adams v. Alliant Techsystems Inc., CIV.A.7:99CV00813.
...that the National Parks Act does not require the application of a state's procedural rules. They cite, for example, Reed v. Charizio, 183 F.Supp. 52, 53 (E.D.Va.1960) which concluded that "[t]he language of 16 U.S.C. § 457, providing that `the rights of the parties shall be governed by the ......
-
Pratt v. Kelly, 77-1274
...56, 4 L.Ed.2d 62, Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1952), Olsen v. McPartlin, 105 F.Supp. 561 (D.Minn.1952), and Reed v. Charizio, 183 F.Supp. 52 (E.D.Va.1960). Stokes, Mater, and Olsen were cases in which it is clear that exclusive jurisdiction over the place where the accident occu......