Santoro v. United States
Decision Date | 22 May 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 64C98.,64C98. |
Parties | Sadie Ann SANTORO, Administratrix of the Estate of Dominick Louis Santoro, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Ezell Johnson, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Gerald M. Rubin, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., for defendant.
Raymond McClory, Chicago, Ill., for counter-defendant.
In this Federal Tort Claims Act suit, the United States of America moves to dismiss Ezell Johnson as a party defendant. The action arises out of an automobile accident between Dominick Louis Santoro and Ezell Johnson, the latter then acting in his capacity as a postal deliveryman for the Post Office. Plaintiff, Administratrix of the Estate of Dominick Louis Santoro, replies that defendant Johnson is a proper party who should not be dismissed.
The propriety of dismissing defendant Johnson is determined by Title 28 U.S.C. § 2679, an immunity statute which must be viewed conjunctively with the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2674.
The salient feature of § 2679 is subparagraph (b), which reads as follows:
"The remedy by suit against the United States as provided by section 1346(b) of this title for damage to property or for personal injury, including death, resulting from the operation by any employee of the Government of any motor vehicle while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the employee or his estate whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." (Emphasis added.)
An examination of the legislative history behind subparagraph (b), as indicated in Senate Report 736, reveals that:
2 U.S.Cong. and Adm. News, 1961, p. 2787. (Emphasis added.)
The report further indicates that making the United States Government exclusively liable for employees' acts, while acting in their official capacity, eliminates the necessity of their purchasing liability insurance covering incidents within the scope of their employment.
In Gustafson, et al. v. Peck, 216 F.Supp. 370 (8th Cir. 1963), the defendant was originally sued in a state court for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, while acting in his capacity as a Government employee. After removing the case to the District Court pursuant to § 2679, a motion to remand was filed. In denying this motion, the Court construed § 2679(b), as amended, thus:
Id. 216 F.Supp. at 373. (Emphasis added.)
A similar problem of the relationship between § 2679 and suits against Government employees is involved in Adams v. Jackel, 220 F.Supp. 764 (2nd Cir. 1963). There, a suit filed against the operator of a Government motor vehicle was removed to the District Court. A certificate filed in the state court indicated the United States Attorney was "of the opinion" that "the defendant was acting within the scope of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGowan v. Williams, 79-2541
...against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d); Henderson v. United States, 429 F.2d 588, 590 (10th Cir. 1970); Santoro v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 707, 708 (N.D.Ill.1964). The Attorney General's certification means that the plaintiff can no longer sue the driver in his individual capacit......
-
Bissell v. McElligott
...216 F.Supp. 370; Perez v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1963, 218 F.Supp. 571; Adams v. Jackel, E.D.N.Y., 220 F.Supp. 764; Santoro v. United States, N.D.Ill., 229 F.Supp. 707; and Hoch v. Carter, S.D.N.Y., 242 F.Supp. Because we have no jurisdiction over the remaining claims of the parties plainti......
-
Smith v. Rivest, Civ. A. No. 74-C-580.
...must be dismissed from the action because third-party plaintiffs' exclusive remedy lies against the United States. Santoro v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 707 (N.D.Ill.1964); Perez v. United States, 218 F.Supp. 571 (S.D.N. Y.1963); Kizer v. Sherwood, 311 F. Supp. 809 II. Motion to Dismiss Uni......
-
Adams v. United States, Civ. A. No. P-2717.
...damages lies against the United States, not against the employee. Uptagrafft v. United States, 4 Cir., 315 F.2d 200; Santoro v. United States, N.D.Ill., 229 F.Supp. 707. State Farm's position in a nutshell is that the statutory insulation of Glatthaar against personal liability for the occu......