Source: http://openjurist.org/407/f2d/1280/davis-v-o-harrod
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 11:40:07
Document Index: 241516299

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8132', '§ 8116', '§ 8101', '§ 8116', '§ 2671', '§ 2679', '§ 2679', '§ 2679', '§ 208']

407 F2d 1280 Davis v. O Harrod | OpenJurist
407 F. 2d 1280 - Davis v. O Harrod	Home407 f2d 1280 davis v. o harrod
407 F2d 1280 Davis v. O Harrod 407 F.2d 1280
Felicia Page DAVIS and Glenn W. Davis, Appellants,v.Phyllis O. HARROD and Dennette Harrod, Appellees.
We agree with appellants' argument in two respects: (1) the contention that the FECA allows Mrs. Davis to sue Mrs. Harrod but not the District appears correct2; (2) the D.C. Act itself, and its legislative history, show that the D.C. Act outlines a scheme in which the District should be sued instead of Mrs. Harrod, the individual District employee.3 We thus have the anomaly wherein two acts of Congress covering the situation have precisely opposite schemes in mind.
There is a great division among the cases on this point. Unlike here, the situation usually arises where the agent's immunity stems from being the spouse of the injured party.5 Thus in one case under Section 424 in which this problem arose the passenger was the wife of the driver. The owner was the husband's friend, and the wife, barred by marital immunity from suing her husband, sued the owner. The court held that the husband's immunity carried over to the owner and barred the suit. Baker v. Gaffney, D.D.C., 141 F.Supp. 602 (1956). In Baker the court recognized the split in authorities and relied on the Maryland case of Riegger v. Bruton Brewing Co., 178 Md. 518, 16 A.2d 99, 131 A.L.R. 307 (1940), as establishing the common law in this jurisdiction.
Under the FECA appellantscan sue Mrs. Harrod individually, even though Mrs. Harrod is a co-employee. 5 U.S.C. § 8132 states, regarding a beneficiary under FECA:
The clear implication of this provision is that suits against third parties for negligence are allowable, subject only to the repayment provision. Further, the cases hold that such suits are maintainable against co-employees. Allman v. Hanley, 5 Cir., 302 F.2d 559 (1962); Gilliam v. United States, E.D.Ky., 264 F.Supp. 7 (1967); Marion v. United States, D.Md., 214 F.Supp. 320 (1963).
However, the FECA would seem to bar a suit against the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) provides that the remedy against the United States is "exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality * * *." Since the FECA explicitly covers employees of the District, 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1) (D), it seems likely that the liability against the District is barred by the exclusivity provision of § 8116(c). This is consistent with the series of cases that hold that where there is one system of liability against the government it should be the exclusive one. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (1952); Aubrey v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 254 F.2d 768 (1958).
Thus under the FECA it appears that appellants could sue Mrs. Harrod, but not the District. Appellees have made an additional argument based on yet another statute, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. (Supp. III 1965-1967). That Act allows the United States to be sued for the torts of its employees, and under § 2679 suits against the individual employees are explicitly barred in automobile cases. Thus appellees claim that § 2679 should bar this suit. However, the FTCA does not cover employees of the District of Columbia. Douffas v. Johnson, D.D.C., 83 F.Supp. 644 (1949). It therefore appears that § 2679 would not bar this suit.
See Ewald v. Lane, 70 App.D.C. 89, 90-91, 104 F.2d 222, 223-224, cert. denied, 308 U.S. 568, 60 S.Ct. 81, 84 L. Ed. 477 (1939), and discussion in Roscoe v. Roscoe, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 379 F.2d 94 (1967).
Also, inBaker the court indicated that it felt the suit was "inequitable and unconscionable." 141 F.Supp. at 604. Cf. Steele v. Steele, D.D.C., 65 F.Supp. 329 (1946).
Of course, this section does not prevent the husband here from being liable because he is the car owner. Section 208 obviously refers to the liability of a husbandqua husband, and cannot be read to preclude liability of a husband as the owner of a car, under a statute (written more than 50 years after § 208) making all car owners liable for the acts of the driver.
Home407 f2d 1280 davis v. o harrod