Simpson v. United States, 71-1504.

Decision Date04 February 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-1504.,71-1504.
Citation454 F.2d 691
PartiesWilliam E. SIMPSON, a Minor, etc., William H. Simpson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

George R. Fleming, Clarksville, Tenn., for plaintiffs-appellants; S. McP. Glasgow, Jr., Glasgow, Adams & Taylor, Nashville, Tenn., Marks & Fleming, Clarksville, Tenn., on brief.

Ames Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for defendant-appellee; Charles H. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Ames Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on brief.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We affirm.

The case arises out of the explosion of an army rifle grenade while in the possession of William E. Simpson, an almost nineteen year old college student at Austin Peay University at Clarksville, Tennessee. Simpson dropped the grenade to the pavement while showing it to another student. It exploded, severely injuring Simpson. Suit was filed by Simpson and his father against the United States.

Plaintiffs' proof showed the following: Simpson had obtained the grenade about four weeks earlier from Albert Carpenter, Jr., while they and two girls were hiking in a wooded area in Fort Campbell, a military reservation. Carpenter was the minor son of a Navy chaplain residing in the Clarksville Base Annex at Fort Campbell. Carpenter had come into possession of the grenade and had secreted it in the wooded area where Simpson and his companions were walking. This wooded area was adjacent to a training area which was off limits to civilians and was posted with signs to that effect.

Carpenter gave the grenade to Simpson. Carpenter did not testify and no evidence was introduced as to how, when or where he originally had obtained the grenade.

At the close of plaintiffs' proof the Government moved for judgment pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.1 Judge L. Clure Morton granted the motion and dismissed the action on the ground that there was no proof of Government negligence.2

The standard for review of Rule 41(b) dismissal is the same as that of a judgment by the court at the close of all of the evidence. Ellis v. Carter, 328 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1964); Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., 148 F.2d 407, 411 (6th Cir. 1945).

The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) provides:

"The district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Risinger v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 16, 1990
    ...467 U.S. 1242, 104 S.Ct. 3513, 82 L.Ed.2d 822 (1984); Marr v. Rife, 503 F.2d 735, 740 (6th Cir.1974); Simpson v. United States, 454 F.2d 691, 692 (8th Cir.1972) (per curiam). See generally 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2376, at 248 (1971) ("The usual standards......
  • Marr v. Rife
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 26, 1974
    ...of such ruling was clearly erroneous. Woods v. North American Rockwell Corp., 480 F.2d 644, 646 (10th Cir. 1973); Simpson v. United States, 454 F.2d 691, 692 (6th Cir. 1972). We do not consider that the relevant findings of the District Judge were clearly erroneous. It was for him to resolv......
  • BRELAND, BY AND THROUGH BRELAND v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • October 15, 1990
    ...scope of his office or employment." See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953); Simpson v. United States, 454 F.2d 691 (6th Cir.1972). The evidence does not establish who, by his act or omission, placed, or caused to be placed, the LAW rocket in question ......
  • Conlon v. U.S., Civil Action No. 94-3140 MLP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 26, 1997
    ...means the first attempt to hold the United States liable under the FTCA following explosions of military ordnance. In Simpson v. United States, 454 F.2d 691 (6th Cir.1972), a Navy chaplain's son ("Carpenter") had hidden an army rifle grenade in a wooded area adjacent to a military training ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT