United States v. Harms
| Decision Date | 30 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 3262. |
| Citation | 96 F. Supp. 1022 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HARMS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Max M. Bulkeley, U.S. Atty., Joseph N. Lilly, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for The United States.
Lowell White and Walter A. Steele, Denver, Colo., for defendant.
In this action the United States seeks to recover damages to a Government-owned automobile resulting from a collision with a truck owned and operated by the citizen defendant and allegedly as the result of his negligence. The defendant has counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages to defendant's truck arising out of the same collision asserting that such was caused by the negligence of the operator of the Government vehicle.
The United States has moved to dismiss the counterclaim upon the theory that such cannot be maintained against the sovereign. Both sides have submitted briefs which have been considered by the Court.
I am in accord with the conclusion reached, as well as the reasoning, of the opinion in United States v. Schlitz, D. C.E.D.Virginia, 9 F.R.D. 259, 260, wherein, under a factual situation analogous to that shown by the pleadings in the case at bar, it was decided that a claim assertable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), "may be asserted by counterclaim by the citizen-defendant when sued by the United States for damages, if both claims arise from the same event and are of the same character." The intimations of United States v. Etna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366, 70 S.Ct. 207, 94 L.Ed. 171, and United States v. Fotopulas, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 631, seem to me to be in accord with this disposition.
It is, therefore, ordered that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim be and the same hereby is overruled.
In making this disposition, I wish to emphasize, as did the Court in United States v. Schlitz, supra,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frederick v. United States
...defendant's asserting his tort claim as a counterclaim. 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 13.29 (2d ed. 1966, Supp.1965); United States v. Harms, 96 F.Supp. 1022 (D.Colo., 1951); United States v. Rosati, 97 F.Supp. 747 (D.N.J., 1951). 12 The trial judge recognized this waiver of sovereign immuni......
-
United States v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corporation
...States v. Rosati, D.C. N.J., 97 F.Supp. 747; United States v. Vernon Cab Company, D.C.Mass., 125 F. Supp. 335, and United States v. Harms, D.C.Colo., 96 F.Supp. 1022.3 We are not here concerned with the problems of recoupment or set-off since defendant could recover on its counterclaim only......
-
United States v. WH Pollard Company
...arising out of the same accident if brought within the two year period. U. S. v. Schlitz, D.C. Va.1949, 9 F.R.D. 259; U. S. v. Harms, D.C.D.Colo.1951, 96 F.Supp. 1022; U. S. v. Rosati, D.C.D.N.J.1951, 97 F.Supp. 747; see U. S. v. Silverton, 1 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 824. The Silverton case inv......
-
United States v. Capital Transit Co., Civ. A. No. 2019-52.
...to counterclaim for damages to his automobile and was not required to assert such a claim in a separate action. See also U. S. v. Harms, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 1022; U. S. v. Rosati, D.C.N.J.-'51, 97 F.Supp. 747. In admiralty cases, it has been held that the United States by bringing suit assumed......