Vantrease v. United States, No. 18222.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit , and CECIL, Senior Circuit |
| Citation | 400 F.2d 853 |
| Parties | Sammy J. VANTREASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 18222. |
| Decision Date | 04 September 1968 |
400 F.2d 853 (1968)
Sammy J. VANTREASE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18222.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
September 4, 1968.
J. Walter Brock, Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellant, Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dillwy, by William G. Reamon, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief.
William Kanter, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee, Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Harold D. Beaton, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief.
Before CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
JOHN W. PECK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff was injured while within the scope of his employment as a mail carrier for the United States Post Office when struck by a car driven by another Post Office employee, Cameron, who was also within the scope of his employment. Plaintiff received benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. § 751 et seq.) (now recodified, 5 U.S.C. (Supp. II) § 8101 et seq.) and then brought a common law negligence action against Cameron in the state courts of Michigan. Upon certification by the United States Attorney that Cameron was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, the cause was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan under the Federal Drivers Act (28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)), and the United States was substituted as the party defendant. From the District Court's order dismissing the action on the government's motion for summary judgment, and denying plaintiff's motion to remand the cause to the state courts for his negligence claim against Cameron, plaintiff appeals.
The Federal Drivers Act (28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)-(e)1) was enacted in 1961 to protect or immunize government drivers from personal liability on claims arising from vehicular accidents occurring during the course of their employment, and to accordingly relieve such employees of the burden of acquiring private automobile liability insurance for driving while on the job. See H.R.Rep. No. 297, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.; S.Rep. No. 736, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.; 107 Cong. Rec. 18,499-500, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1961, p. 2784. See Generally Annot. 16 A.L.R.3d 1394, 1402 (1967). The purpose of the Act is accomplished by making "the remedy by suit against the United States as provided by section 1346(b) Federal Tort Claims Act of this title for damage * * * or * * * personal injury, including death, resulting from the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lojuk v. Quandt, 82-1084
...Houten v. Ralls, 411 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.1969), certiorari denied, 396 U.S. 962, 90 S.Ct. 436, 24 L.Ed.2d 426; Vantrease v. United States, 400 F.2d 853 (6th Cir.1968). Despite these cases interpreting the Federal Drivers Liability Act, in 1973 Congress amended Section 4116(a) to include parag......
-
Lafferty v. US, Civ. A. No. 94-13.
...remedy under the FTCA is a civil action against the United States. Combs v. U.S., 768 F.Supp. 584 (E.D.Ky.1991); Vantrease v. U.S., 400 F.2d 853 (6th Cir.1968). Additionally, under certain circumstances, the United States may provide benefits for medical expenses and lost wages to its own i......
-
Watkins v. United States, Civ. A. No. 176-91.
...accidents and relieving them from having to provide liability insurance for driving on the job. See, e. g., Vantrease v. United States, 400 F.2d 853, 854 (6th Cir. In the present case, Williams is protected by the Federal Drivers Act, and must be dismissed. See, e. g., Binn v. United States......
-
Kelley v. U.S., 7
...v. Ralls, 9th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 940; Noga v. United States, 9th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 943; Vantrease v. United States, 6th Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 853, 855; cf. Perez v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1963, 218 F.Supp. 571, 576; McCrary v. United States, E.D.Tenn.1964, 235 F.Supp. 33. On that isolated ......
-
Lojuk v. Quandt, 82-1084
...Houten v. Ralls, 411 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.1969), certiorari denied, 396 U.S. 962, 90 S.Ct. 436, 24 L.Ed.2d 426; Vantrease v. United States, 400 F.2d 853 (6th Cir.1968). Despite these cases interpreting the Federal Drivers Liability Act, in 1973 Congress amended Section 4116(a) to include parag......
-
Lafferty v. US, Civ. A. No. 94-13.
...remedy under the FTCA is a civil action against the United States. Combs v. U.S., 768 F.Supp. 584 (E.D.Ky.1991); Vantrease v. U.S., 400 F.2d 853 (6th Cir.1968). Additionally, under certain circumstances, the United States may provide benefits for medical expenses and lost wages to its own i......
-
Watkins v. United States, Civ. A. No. 176-91.
...accidents and relieving them from having to provide liability insurance for driving on the job. See, e. g., Vantrease v. United States, 400 F.2d 853, 854 (6th Cir. In the present case, Williams is protected by the Federal Drivers Act, and must be dismissed. See, e. g., Binn v. United States......
-
Kelley v. U.S., 7
...v. Ralls, 9th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 940; Noga v. United States, 9th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 943; Vantrease v. United States, 6th Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 853, 855; cf. Perez v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1963, 218 F.Supp. 571, 576; McCrary v. United States, E.D.Tenn.1964, 235 F.Supp. 33. On that isolated ......