Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/378/319/217414/
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 02:49:52
Document Index: 126617429

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§ 220', '§ 2674', '§ 12', '§ 2671']

United States of America, Appellant, v. Edward C. Becker, Administrator of the Estate of Ernest J. Becker, Deceased, Appellee, 378 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1967) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1967 › United States of America, Appellant, v. Edward C. Becker, Administrator of the Estate of Ernest J. B...
United States of America, Appellant, v. Edward C. Becker, Administrator of the Estate of Ernest J. Becker, Deceased, Appellee, 378 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1967)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 378 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1967) May 16, 1967
Barefoot Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., David L. Rose, Atty., Harvey L. Zuckman, Atty., Civil Div. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Richard C. Gormley, present U. S. Atty., William P. Copple, former U. S. Atty., John Eldridge, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.
The personal representative of Ernest J. Becker, deceased, brought this action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671 et seq. (1964), to recover damages for the wrongful death of Becker. Becker was killed while riding as a passenger in an airplane being used on a forest fire reconnaissance flight for the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The airplane crashed while making low-altitude passes over a small fire in the Apache National Forest near Springerville, Arizona.
On or about June 5, 1962, the Forest Service entered into an agreement entitled "Survey of Aircraft Availability," with an airplane pilot named Robert McIlrath. Pursuant to that agreement, McIlrath made available to the Forest Service his Cessna 180 aircraft at the Springer-ville airport, and his services as pilot of that aircraft. During the succeeding twenty days, McIlrath made a number of flights at the request of the Forest Service for which he was paid $762, computed at the rate of $30.00 an hour.
At about 10:45 a. m. on June 25, 1962, a small forest fire was reported in the Apache National Forest. Fire fighters, under the supervision of the Springer-ville District Ranger Station, were dispatched on the ground to the fire for the purpose of suppressing it. At approximately 4:00 p. m. on that day, the Cessna 180 aircraft referred to above, piloted by McIlrath, with Kenneth Sahlin, the Fire Control Officer of the Apache National Forest, and Becker, also on board, began a reconnaissance flight of the fire area. The crash occurred during this flight, killing all three occupants.
The United States does question, however, the finding and conclusion that at the time of the accident, the pilot, McIlrath, was an employee of the United States Government within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671. Instead, the Government urges that McIlrath was rendering service for the United States as an independent contractor and the United States is therefore not liable under the Act.
Section 2671 defines " [e]mployee of the government" as including, among others, "* * * officers or employees of any federal agency * * *." Whether the pilot, McIlrath, was an employee of the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, is a question of federal law. Under federal law, the word "employee," as used in the Act, is to be read as having the same general meaning as the term "servant" has in the body of law relating to the doctrine of respondeat superior. Brucker v. United States, 9 Cir., 338 F.2d 427, 428, n. 2.
In the body of law relating to the doctrine of respondeat superior, certain criteria have been formulated for determining whether, under the circumstances of a particular case, an individual is a servant or an independent contractor. A list of the criteria most often applied is set out in Restatement (Second) Agency, § 220(2) (1958), quoted in the margin.2 This section of Restatement (Second), was called to the trial court's attention in the Government's pre-trial brief.
In weighing the evidence to determine whether McIlrath was an "employee" of the United States at the time of the accident, the trial court exercised a fact-finding function. See Brucker v. United States, 9 Cir., 338 F.2d 427, 428, n. 3. There being no indication that the trial court applied irrelevant criteria in the instant case, it follows that its determination that McIlrath was an employee of the United States at the time of the accident, represents a finding of fact as to which we must apply the clearly erroneous test of Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 343 F.2d 145, 146.
McIlrath was paid by the local Forest Service administrative officer under a voucher system, rather than by the Forest Service payroll section. His work for the Government was performed pursuant to a standard form written contract known as the "Survey of Aircraft Availability," which he entered into with the Forest Service. Under this contract, the rate of compensation covered not only his own services but the use of his private airplane. He was apparently required to maintain the airplane and provide the gasoline.
McIlrath operated under the detailed control and direction of the Forest Service, as manifested by Forest Service regulations which were binding upon him, and through specific directions given to him by the Fire Control Officer. These regulations and directions specifically included the matter of minimum altitude for reconnaissance flights. While McIlrath could, for safety reasons, refuse to fly when requested or, for the same reasons, make his own decisions as to altitude or other aspects of flight, he was otherwise subject to close supervision and control in flight. The Fire Control Officer was in charge of each flight and told the pilot "when and where to go and what to do." If the Forest Service did not like McIlrath's flying techniques or the way he maintained his airplane, it could terminate his services.
Considering these contrasting items of evidence, we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the trial court in making the ultimate finding that McIlrath was serving as an employee of the United States at the time of the accident. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746; Rederi A/B Soya v. SS GRAND GRACE, 9 Cir., 369 F.2d 159, 165.
The Government argues that such an award is erroneous because it fails to take into account the above-mentioned factors which would necessarily have prevented decedent's survivors from obtaining all of his gross income had he lived. The Government further contends that the asserted excess of the award above actual loss must be viewed as punitive damages barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (1964). The Government calls attention to considerations which, in its view, would have warranted at least a one-third deduction from the total award to represent what Becker would reasonably have spent to maintain himself had he lived out his life expectancy. We are urged to remand for recomputation of damages, in the event we sustain the district court on the issue of liability.
In accepting, as one element of damages, the $281,790.14 figure referred to above, the trial court found that Becker's income would have been "at least" $15,000 per year. The quoted words indicate that the court regarded the $15,000 figure as a minimum, not a maximum.8 This may very well account for the fact that the trial court deducted nothing for prospective living expenses.
Insofar as this record indicates, the district court chose to accept the minimum figure of $15,000 annual gross income, and disregard deductions, rather than accept a higher annual gross income figure and attempt to prognosticate Becker's future cost of living.
The Arizona wrongful death damage statute, A.R.S. § 12.613 provides for "fair and just" damages. The determination of such damages, under this Arizona test, is primarily for the trier of fact. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Frazier, 9 Cir., 289 F.2d 849, 857-858. In Arizona, the fact-finder's damage award may not be overturned as excessive except where it is "* * * so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure, unreasonable, and outrageous * * *." Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562, 416 P.2d 983, 988. We do not regard the damage award in this case to be excessive in this sense.
Becker had long been interested in the conservation and development of natural resources. The Forest Service, following the practice of maintaining the good will of leading members of the community who were interested in conservation, had named Becker as one of its Forest Service "cooperators." Forest Service regulations permit cooperators to go on Forest Service flights. The Fire Control Officer, Sahlin, had apparently invited Becker to go on this particular flight
When told to be on "stand-by," however, McIlrath had to have his aircraft ready to go on thirty minutes' notice
The Forest Service Regulations are published in a "Forest Service Handbook" issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. These regulations lay down detailed requirements for the pilot's qualifications (Sec. 5703), require "frequent, careful, intensive inspections" of the pilot (Sec. 5702.33a), provide a detailed checklist to be used in inspecting the pilot and his plane (Sec. 5702.33b 1 and 2), gives detailed rules for operation of the plane (Sec. 5705), and require the pilot to obey the directives of Forest Service personnel when compliance would not violate Civil Air Regulations or endanger the aircraft, occupants or cargo (Sec. 5705.11e)
These annual reviews relate to a pilot's medical information, the currency of a pilot's flying license, his accident history, and whether any "derogatory remarks" have been made against him
In view of our holding that the trial court did not err in finding that McIlrath was serving as an employee of the United States at the time of the accident, we do not reach appellee's alternative argument that Becker was acting on behalf of a federal agency in an "official capacity," within the meaning of "employee" as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2671, and is therefore, apart from common law concepts of the master-servant relationship, an "employee" within the meaning of that statute
Although at least one other circuit has allowed deduction of federal and state income taxes in computing future earnings under some circumstances, we are bound to look first to Arizona law which apparently would not allow such a deduction. See Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, S.A., 2 Cir., 364 F.2d 118, 125-126