United States v. Westfall

Decision Date11 June 1952
Docket NumberNo. 12966.,12966.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. WESTFALL.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., Vaughn E. Evans, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

William A. Griffin, Seattle, Wash., J. B. Pennington, Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before HEALY, ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges.

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals from a judgment rendered against it in a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Numerous errors are assigned, only a few of which are thought deserving of notice.

1. Plaintiff's injury giving rise to the suit occurred in the State of Washington February 20, 1946. The action was commenced April 21, 1950. It is contended that the cause was barred by the state statute prescribing a three-year limitation in suits for personal injury. The Tort Claims Act, however, prescribes its own limitation. State of Maryland v. United States, 4 Cir., 165 F.2d 869. The Act, as amended April 25, 1949, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b), provides a limit for presentation of two years after the claim accrues or of one year after adoption of the amendatory act, whichever is later. The suit was timely filed.1

2. Appellee was injured while traveling aboard a United States army bus. It is claimed that she was a guest passenger within the intendment of the Washington guest statute, Remington's Revised Statutes, § 6360-121. This provides that no person transported by the owner of a motor vehicle as an invited guest or licensee, without payment for the transportation, shall have a cause of action for injuries accidentally suffered while being so transported. The local rule is that gratuitous carriage, only, is contemplated by the statute. Recovery may be had if actual or potential benefit in a material or business sense results or is expected to result to the owner, and if the transportation be motivated by the expectation of such benefit. Scholz v. Leuer, 7 Wash.2d 76, 109 P.2d 294, and cases cited.

The evidence is that appellee was director and a member of a USO troupe which was being transported by army bus from Seattle to Fort Lewis for the purpose of providing entertainment for the soldiers stationed there — an enterprise in which the United States was obviously interested. The entertainment had been arranged for by a representative of the army, and the soldier driving the bus had been directed by his superior officer to bring the troupe to Fort Lewis. The government's argument that appellee went along merely in the capacity of chaperone is without warrant in the record.

3. The court found that the bus was driven at an excessively high rate of speed and that the driver negligently applied the brakes and brought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Glenn v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • March 30, 1955
    ...United States shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after such claim accrues * * *." See United States v. Westfall, 9 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 765, 766. The specific question presented for decision is whether the general provision of subsection (a) of § 2401 tolling th......
  • Tessier v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • July 31, 1959
    ...587, 21 A.L.R.2d 1458; Maryland, to Use of Burkhardt v. United States, 4 Cir., 1947, 165 F.2d 869, 1 A.L. R.2d 213; United States v. Westfall, 9 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 765. It has been held that this statute is not tolled during disabilities such as minority, Simon v. United States, 5 Cir., 1......
  • Mamea v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • September 16, 2011
    ...of limitations". Poindexter, 647 F.2d at 36 (citing Kossick v. United States, 330 F.2d 933 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Westfall, 197 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1952); Young v. United States, 184 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1950); Maryland ex rel. Burkhardt v. United States, 165 F.2d 869 (4th Cir. 1947......
  • Alexander v. Civil Air Patrol
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • September 26, 1955
    ...is supported by a business or valuable consideration. Alexander was a passenger and not a mere guest or trespasser. United States v. Westfall, 9 Cir., 197 F.2d 765, 766. The guest statute principle was held inapplicable where "actual or potential benefit in a material or business sense resu......
  • 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