Baldowski v. United States

111 F. Supp. 653, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3002
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina
DecidedApril 16, 1953
DocketCiv. A. No. 3167
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 F. Supp. 653 (Baldowski v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baldowski v. United States, 111 F. Supp. 653, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3002 (southcarolinaed 1953).

Opinion

WYCHE, Chief Judge.

This action was cpmm.enced by Mrs. •Cora Mae Baldowski, Mrs. Mary Cox and Cleveland Thomas Cox, by his guardian .ad litem, Thomas W. Cox, to recover damages for injuries to person and property under, the Federal Tort. Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346. The .cases of Mrs. Mary Cox and Cleveland • Thomas Cox, by his guardian, ad. litem, Thomas. W. Cox, have been.disposed of by agreement between the parties, leaving f.or trial only the case of Mrs. Cora Mae Baldowski against-the defendant.

Mrs. Baldowski’s-claim arises out of'a •collision which, occurred on - the 5th day •of November, 19-51; at approximately-10:30 o’clock a. m., at a point on United Statés ■Highway' No. 78, approximately one-half mile east of the corporate limits of. the City of Aiken, South Carolina, between a 1-949 Plymouth sedan automobile . owned and being operated by the plaintiff Mrs. Cora Mae Baldowski, and a 1951 Plymouth sedan automobile .being, operated by J. Ernest Thorpe, who was at the time of the collision performing his duties as a rural mail carrier for the defendant, and acting within the scope of his employment. ...

[654]*654I viewed the scene of the collision and the approaches to it, with the consent, and in the presence of counsel for the parties, the last day of the trial, immediately following the concluding arguments of counsel.

In compliance with Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., I find the facts specially and state my conclusions of law thereon, in the above cause as follows:

Findings of Fact

The plaintiff Mrs. Cora Mae Baldowski, a widow, then sixty-five years of age, and in good health, was driving her automobile within the limits of the law, east along the right side of a straight and level section of paved United States Highway No. 78, one-half mile east of Aiken, South Carolina. She was en route from Augusta, Georgia, to Windsor, South Carolina, and was accompanied by Mrs. Mary Cox, occupying the front seat, and Cleveland Thomas Cox, a minor, occupying the rear seat of her automobile.

J. Ernest Thorpe, an United States mail carrier, while in the performance of his duties in such capacity, delivering and collecting mail along his established route and immediately preceding the collision, was driving his automobile at a reasonable .rate of speed; west along his right side of the highway. Upon reaching a point thereon, near its junction'with a dirt road, without any signal or warning of his intention to do so, Mr. Thorpe turned left across the center line and into collision with the Baldowski automobile. The front of the Thorpe automobile struck the left front of the Baldowski automobile. The Baldowski automobile came to rest a short distance •from the point of the collision on its right ■side and parallel to the highway in a ditch. The Thorpe automobile came to rest on the paved surface of the highway, facing north, with approximately four-fifths of its length on the south of the center line thereof.

Mrs. Baldowski first saw the Thorpe automobile when it was several hundred yards away. It was meeting them, proceeding on its side of the highway in a normal manner.

Mr. Thorpe reduced the speed of his automobile for the purpose of turning left across the highway and into the dirt road. He had mail to deposit in the box of Mrs. L. J. Burckhalter, located on the other side of the paved highway near the southeastern junction of the paved highway and the dirt road. The junction with the dirt road represented the end of the first of three sections of his mail route. The second section of his route commenced after serving the Burckhalter mail box, and proceeded back in an easterly direction along United States Highway No. 78, the direction the Baldowski car was traveling. At the time of the collision it was his intention to turn left and cross the paved highway to serve the Burckhalter mail box and then to turn around and serve the second section of his. route. Papers were located on the rear seat, letters being delivered and collected! were located on the front seat and the pouch provided him by the Post Office Department was located in the foot of the front of the automobile.

From the testimony of all the witnesses, the condition of the respective vehicles after the collision, the pictures illustrating the scene, the attendant physical facts and a view of the scene of the accident, I must conclude that Mr. Thorpe,, while proceeding in a westerly direction on United States Highway No. 78, in the performance of his duties as rural mail carrier for the defendant, failed to keep' a proper lookout, and without any signal,, warning or notice of his intention to do. so, in a negligent, careless manner, turned his vehicle to the left across the center line of the highway into the path of, and into' collision^with the oncoming Baldowski automobile, and that such conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the collision,, and the consequent cause of personal injuries to the plaintiff Mrs> Cora Mae Baldowski, and the damage to her automobile-

The plaintiff Mrs. Cora Mae Baldowski was not guilty of any negligence which contributed as a proximate cause to the collision, or to her injuries and damages.

As a result of the collision, plaintiff Mrs-Cora Mae Baldowski received painful, serious and permanent injuries, which may [655]*655be summarized as follows: Considerable shock; lacerated wound of forehead, three fractured ribs, a fracture of both tones of the right forearm above the wrist joint, dislocated backward; fracture of left arm bone, known as the humerus; dislocation of right kneecap; fracture of right fibula, which was comminuted, or in pieces; compound fracture of right tibia with detachment of internal maleolus; backward dislocation of ankle joint; lacerated wound of left knee joint, partially encircling joint with exposure of knee cap; evoltion of •skin of posterior surface of knee joint and thigh, with exposure of vessels of the popliteal space, which is the space behind the knee joint into which the deeper vessels run, from which she suffered hemorrhage; multiple contusions and abrasions of abdomen, arm, one side of face and body; she had to have opiates from time to time; she was put to sleep and the dislocation of the ankle was reduced and put in drainage; the fractured bones were reduced by traction by pulling on the ankle; the hemorrhage was controlled with force or pressure with hemostats or clamps and vessels ligated; the torn area was drained and the wound extending or encircling the knee sewed up; about two weeks after this was done she developed a large hematoma, which is an accumulation of blood, in the thigh, posterially; she was put to sleep again and an incision made in order to ■evacuate the large hematoma, and packing was put in it until it eventually healed; it was impossible to reduce the fracture of the internal maleolus because that part of the bone had been knocked off completely. The fracture of the right humerus was treated by putting it in a traction apparatus with a Thomas splint, pulling the arm out in order to get the ends of the bone in line, ■for about six weeks, but union was not obtained. She was again put to sleep, an open operation was performed and a bone plate put on, the bone plate holding the bone ends together with screws, which remained on for about two months, after which she developed osteomyelitis, that is, .an inflammation within the canal of the bone. She was put to sleep again and the bone plate removed. She still had an unlimited fracture, which in the course of time, was hoped, would unite, but it did not.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sweeney v. Car/Puter International Corp.
521 F. Supp. 276 (D. South Carolina, 1981)
Ray v. United States
277 F. Supp. 952 (D. South Carolina, 1968)
Kapuschinsky v. United States
259 F. Supp. 1 (D. South Carolina, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 F. Supp. 653, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldowski-v-united-states-southcarolinaed-1953.