Williams v. United States, 28870-E.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 28870-E.,28870-E. |
| Citation | 105 F. Supp. 208 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. |
Henry C. Clausen, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Chauncey Tramutolo, U. S. Atty., Rudolph J. Scholz, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
Plaintiff has brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., to recover damages for injuries sustained through the negligence of an intoxicated soldier. The negligence and plaintiff's injuries are not disputed by the defendant. The sole question for decision is whether the soldier was acting within the course and scope of his employment within the purview of the Tort Claims Act. Its determination requires a careful examination of the facts, as disclosed by the record. From the evidence of defendant's witnesses, all of whom testified by deposition, the following facts appear.
The accident occurred on the evening of March 3, 1949, on the island of Guam. Plaintiff was sitting in a vehicle which was parked at the end of the Breakwater road at the little town of Agana when it was struck by a weapons carrier driven by one Seabourn, a Corporal in the United States Army. Seabourn's regular duties were as clerk in supply. He testified that he did not work on the day in question but had taken time off and stayed around his base until about noon, when he left on a pass with Cpl. Benson and Pvt. Schmidt of his company. After spending the afternoon drinking beer they returned to the base about seven p. m. and Seabourn picked up a trip ticket for the weapons carrier. (A trip ticket is authorization from a unit Commander to use a particular vehicle on official business.) Accompanied by Benson and Schmidt, he drove to the Enlisted Men's Club, where they indulged in champagne as well as beer, and then decided to take a ride. At some time prior to the accident, Seabourn let both friends out of the vehicle and he testified that that was the last he remembered until the following morning when he awoke beside the road.
A certified copy of the trip ticket was introduced in evidence. It shows that it was made out to one Cabrera, at the request of Lt. Werb, for official business and was good for 24 hours. It further shows that the vehicle was attached to the 374th Maintenance Unit; that it was dispatched from the Motor Pool, and was scheduled to go to various official places. Seabourn testified that he picked up the trip ticket from Sgt. Stiles of his company; that it was common practice for trip tickets to be passed around among the men working in that section, regardless of the name of the person to whom the ticket had issued; and that this was so whether the vehicle was to be used on official business or for recreation. Schmidt testified that once a vehicle had a trip ticket, it could be used for either official business or recreation.
On the other hand, Sgt. Stiles stated that the vehicle was to be used for official business only; that because the maintenance unit was on duty twenty-four hours a day the vehicle was on 24 hours dispatch and was used officially by all men in the section who had permits; that it was good on the post only.
Even assuming that the practice testified to by Seabourn and Schmidt was known and permitted by the officers in charge, it would not make the United States liable. The sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. By the Tort Claims Act the United States has consented to be sued for the negligence of its employees only when they are acting within the scope of their employment which, in the case of military personnel, means acting in line of duty. To determine whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rufino v. United States
...720; U. S. v. Sharpe, 4 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 239, 241. 6 Field v. U. S., D.C.N.D.Ill. 1952, 107 F. Supp. 401, 404; Williams v. U. S., D.C.N. D.Cal. 1952, 105 F.Supp. 208, 209; Cerri v. U. S., D.C.N.D.Cal. 1948, 80 F. Supp. 831, 7 38 U.S.C.A. § 15 et seq. 8 28 U.S.C. § 2671. 9 Canon v. U. S.......
-
United States v. Lushbough, 14591
...tort liability, not for the purpose of determining the relationship of the government to its employees." And see Williams v. United States, D.C., 105 F.Supp. 208, 209; Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 7, 9; Problems Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Yankwich, 9 F.R.D. 143, 150-152......
-
Rodriguez v. United States
...(5th Cir., Fla., 1949), compromised after grant of certiorari, 338 U.S. 440, 70 S.Ct. 225, 94 L. Ed. 244 (1949); Williams v. United States, 105 F.Supp. 208, 209 (ND Cal. 1952), considered on other grounds 350 U.S. 857, 76 S.Ct. 100, 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); Clemens v. United States, 88 F.Supp.......
-
Williams v. United States, 15338.
...was further "considered" by the District Court on the original trial record upon which that court based its first decision reported in 105 F.Supp. 208. The District Court rendered a second opinion and decision which is reported in 141 F.Supp. 851. The present appeal is from the judgment ent......