O'TOOle v. United States, 206 F.2d 912, 3rd Cir. (1953)
O'TOOle v. United States, 206 F.2d 912, 3rd Cir. (1953)
2d 912
O'TOOLE et al.
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 10915.
Januar D. Bove, Jr., and Arthur G. Connolly, Wilmington, Del., for all
appellants except Robert J. Wilson.
Herbert L. Cobin, Wilmington, Del. (William H. Foulk, Wilmington, Del.,
on the brief), for appellant Robert J. Wilson.
Stanley Rose, Washington, D. C. (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., William Marvel, U. S. Atty.,
Wilmington, Del., Massillon M. Heuser, Atty., Department of Justice,
Washington, D. C., Lieutenant Charles P. Moriarty, Jr., Judge Advocate
General's Corps, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C., on the
brief), for United States of America.
James R. Morford, Wilmington, Del. (Morford, Bennethum and Marvel,
Wilmington, Del., Vernon E. West, Chester H. Gray, and Oliver Gasch,
Washington, D. C., on the brief), for District of Columbia.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS and GOODRICH, Circuit
Judges.
BIGGS, Chief Judge.
The facts alleged in the amended complaint are as follows. On July 9, 1950,
Charlotte M. O'Toole and Thomas B. O'Toole, her husband, were passengers in
an automobile owned by Thomas B. O'Toole and being driven north on Route
14 in Delaware by Robert J. Wilson. Heading south on the same route was a
unit of the District of Columbia National Guard which included two M-4
tractors. The first tractor was being driven by Sergeant James Francis Griggs,
and the second, which was directly behind the first, by Pfc. Melvin L.
Harrington. At a point about five miles south of Milford, Delaware, Griggs'
tractor proceeded to a stop on the right hand side of the road. Harrington's
tractor thereupon crossed the highway just as the O'Toole car was approaching.
The car and Harrington's tractor collided, killing Mr. O'Toole, seriously
injuring Mrs. O'Toole and Wilson, and damaging the automobile. The
complaint alleged that Harrington was "the agent, servant or employee of the
United States of America and of the District of Columbia and was acting within
the scope of his employment or office," and that the M-4 tractor was being
"driven, operated or maintained in a negligent and unsafe manner."
The plaintiffs Charlotte M. O'Toole and Robert J. Wilson brought suit in their
own names. Charlotte M. O'Toole also sued as administratrix of her husband's
estate. The corporate plaintiff, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company,
sued as subrogee to Thomas B. O'Toole's right of recovery for damage to the
automobile. Suit against the United States was based upon the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674, 1346(b). Although the complaint is not entirely
clear as to the basis of suit against the District of Columbia, we will regard this
suit as based upon diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. Service
of process on the District of Columbia was made in accordance with the
Delaware nonresident motorist statute, Revised Code of Delaware, 1935,
4590. Notice of suit was also mailed to the District of Columbia pursuant to
D.C.Code 12-208 (1940 ed.).
The District Court granted the motions of both defendants. See 106 F.Supp. 804
(D.Del.1952). The court held that Harrington and Griggs were not employees of
the United States within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that
the District of Columbia was not subject to service of process under the
Delaware nonresident motorist statute. As additional grounds for dismissing the
action as to the District of Columbia the court held that the venue was improper
and that, if the suit should be considered as based upon the Federal Tort Claims
Act, the District of Columbia was not covered by that Act in its present form.
The plaintiffs appeal.
We will address ourselves solely to the question of responsibility for the torts of
the District of Columbia National Guard. We do not consider it necessary to
deal with the manifold other problems presented to the court below. Thus, we
do not decide whether the District of Columbia is itself an agency of the United
States within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Nor will we discuss
whether venue was properly laid in the court below as to the District of
Columbia or whether the court had jurisdiction over the District by virtue of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., the application of Erie R. Co. v.
Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, the Delaware
nonresident motorist statute, or the District of Columbia Code, 12-208, or
finally the sovereign immunity, said to shield the District of Columbia from this
suit. In our view our determination of responsibility for the alleged negligence
in operating or maintaining Harrington's M-4 tractor determines this appeal.
The present record is ample to enable us to make such a determination.
The liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act is spelled
out in Sections 2674 and 1346(b) of Title 28 U.S.C. The former section
provides that "The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of
this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a
private individual under like circumstances, * * *." The latter confers on the
district courts exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the
United States, for money damages "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 be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where
the act or omission occurred."
10
There is no doubt that Harrington was in the service of and performing the
work of the District of Columbia National Guard at the time of the collision
with the O'Toole car. The summer training schedule of the Guard and the
record of Harrington's participation in this training are before us. The disputed
question is whether the Guard was in such a relation to the United States as to
make Harrington an employee not only of the Guard but of the United States. It
must be remembered in this connection that it is the peacetime status of the
Guard with which we are concerned; the Guard had not been ordered into
active service with the Army of the United States. See 48 Stat. 155 (1933), 32
U.S.C.A. 4 et seq.; P.L. 476, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952), 50 U.S.C.A. 1111
et seq.
11
12
It thus appears that there is a direct chain of control and command from the
President through the Guard's commanding general to the enlisted members of
the Guard. By the same token, control of the Guard by the District of Columbia
is lacking. It is true that in the case of riot or other similar emergency the
That the District of Columbia National Guard is under the Federal Government
rather than the District of Columbia has been recognized by those authorities
who are presumably most familiar with Guard affairs. On January 26, 1949,
President Truman issued Executive Order No. 10030 U. S. Code Cong. Service
1949, p. 2681, providing that "The Secretary of Defense is authorized and
directed to supervise and control, on behalf of the President and through such
official or officials of the National Military Establishment as the said Secretary
shall designate, the administration of the affairs of the District of Columbia
National Guard: Provided, that the foregoing provision shall not be effective
whenever the said National Guard is in active Federal service or on active
emergency duty in the District of Columbia after being ordered to such duty
pursuant to law." Colonel Nevitt and General Cox, then officers of the Guard,
testified to the effect of this order.12 Colonel Nevitt stated: "As I read the
Executive order, I see no material change in the operation of the National Guard
of the District of Columbia, * * *." General Cox added: "Under the set-up in
the District of Columbia, the National Guard is essentially a Federal force as
against a State force in the States. The President is the only person who can call
the National Guard out. * * * The Commissioners of the District of Columbia
have no authority over the Guard. The authority extends to the handling of our
budgetary requirements. In the States the Governor of the State is at the head of
the National Guard except in cases of emergency, when the Guard is called in
as a Federal force, but here the Guard is actually a Federal force." General Cox
concluded that the President in the District of Columbia takes the place of the
Governor in the individual State in controlling the National Guard. Two earlier
Congressional reports had reached a similar conclusion.13 The commanding
general of the Guard at the time of the accident now before us has expressed
the same opinion.14
14
Prior cases have referred to this problem, although the references may perhaps
16
Other cases, to the effect that for some purposes employees of the District of
Columbia are not employees of the United States, have no bearing on the status
of members of the District of Columbia National Guard. See Donovan v.
We therefore hold that Harrington was an employee of the United States within
the Federal Tort Claims Act and that his M-4 tractor, which was admittedly
owned by the United States and loaned to the District Guard, was maintained
by the United States through the Guard. We need not decide whether the
District of Columbia National Guard is best characterized as a "military force of
the United States" or simply as a "federal agency" or "independent
establishments of the United States."18 We think it clear that it is within one of
these terms although engaged in peacetime training. Our holding rests upon the
degree of supervision and control exercised over the District Guard in
peacetime by federal authorities.
18
As a final consideration on this aspect of the case, we note that the Federal Tort
Claims Act admonishes us to equate the position of the United States to that of
a private individual in like circumstances to determine whether there is liability.
See Section 2674, Title 28 U.S.C. As was said by Judge Holtzoff of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia in Gilroy v. United States,
112 F.Supp. 664, 665, "The purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act was to
abrogate the immunity of the United States against suit in tort. Its purpose was
to make the United States liable to suit in tort in the same manner as anyone
else. Unlike other statutes waiving governmental immunity, the Federal Tort
Claims Act should be liberally construed in order to effectuate the purpose that
was intended by its framers. The words, `as a private individual', are not used as
words of art or as a limitation, but, rather, in a descriptive manner to indicate
that the United States should be liable in the same manner and to the same
extent as anyone else."
19
20
We have held that the United States, the "Government", may be held to liability
under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the instant case because of the measure of
the control and command vested in the United States over the National Guard
of the District of Columbia. By the same token, as we have previously stated,
The judgment of the court below on the motion of the United States for
summary judgment will be reversed and the case remanded for trial on the
issue of negligence. The judgment of the court below dismissing the complaint
as to the District of Columbia will be affirmed.
Notes:
1
10
the request of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia but upon the
order of the commanding general
11
12
13
14
15
16
ordered into the active military service of the United States from the date of
such order stand relieved from duty in the National Guard of their respective
States, Territories, and the District of Columbia so long as they shall remain in
the active military service of the United States * * *."
See also 50 U.S.C.A. 1122(b).
17
Compare the status of the Coast Guard which in peacetime is normally under
the Treasury Department, see 14 U.S.C.A. 1, and in wartime becomes a part
of the United States Navy. See 14 U.S.C. A. 3. Under either provision the
Coast Guard remains a federal agency
It may be true that certain statutes pertaining to the District of Columbia
National Guard inferentially contradict the conclusion which we have reached.
E.g., 32 U.S.C.A. 47. However, in view of the unequivocal language of the
statutes giving the President control of the District Guard through its
commanding general, we take the view that the draftsmen of these apparently
conflicting statutes failed to give full regard to the unique position of the
District Guard.
18
The United States cites Douffas v. Johnson, D.C.1949, 83 F.Supp. 644, 645 for
the proposition that the District National Guard cannot be an agency or
independent establishment of the United States within the definitions of the
Federal Tort Claims Act. This case does not support this proposition. The basis
of decision in Douffas was the failure of the plaintiff to sue the right party, the
United States. The holding was that the Federal Tort Claims Act applies only to
suits against the United States; suit against the District of Columbia was not
compliance with the statute