Fielder v. United States

423 F. Supp. 77, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12145
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 23, 1976
DocketCV 75-4218-AAH
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 423 F. Supp. 77 (Fielder v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fielder v. United States, 423 F. Supp. 77, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12145 (C.D. Cal. 1976).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

HAUK, District Judge.

The motion of defendant, United States of America, to dismiss said defendant from the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, having come on regularly for hearing before the Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, United States District Judge, on the 1st day of November, 1976, plaintiff having appeared through, her attorneys, Richard A. Daily and Arthur J. Aune, and defendant, United States of America, having appeared through its attorneys, William D. Keller, United States Attorney, Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Civil Division, and Michael E. Wolf- *78 son, Assistant United States Attorney, by Michael E. Wolfson, the Court, having considered the pleadings herein, memoranda submitted, and the oral argument of counsel; now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

I

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff filed suit on December 18, 1975, naming the United States of America and two insurance companies as defendants.

2. In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was the wife of one Donald G. Fielder and that her husband was killed on March 22, 1975, as the result of an accident involving a device commonly known as a “hang glider”.

3. Plaintiff further alleges, in her Complaint, that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration had determined that the class of devices commonly known as “hang gliders” were not aircraft within the meaning of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1301(5) 1 and had, thus, not prescribed rules or regulations pertaining to safety in the design, manufacture, and/or operation of said devices.

4. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the Administrator had a duty to determine that “hang gliders” were aircraft within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 1301(5) 2 , and prescribe rules and regulations for their safety pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1421(a), 3 and that the breach of the Administrator’s duty was the proximate cause of Donald G. Fielder’s death.

5. On March 22, 1976, the Court dismissed the defendant, United States of America, from the instant action on the grounds that plaintiff’s claim against the United States was a tort claim and plaintiff had failed to file an appropriate administrative claim, as required by the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675. 4

6. Subsequent to said dismissal, plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the Federal Aviation Administration demanding $750,000 for “the failure of the Federal *79 Aviation Administration to regulate those devices commonly known as hang gliders”, said failure being the “proximate cause of the death of Donald George Fielder”.

7. On or about September 29, 1976, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging her cause of action against the United States of America. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is identical, in all pertinent respects, to her original Complaint from which the United States was dismissed on March 22, 1976.

8. To the extent these Findings of Fact also contain Conclusions of Law, they will be deemed incorporated in the Conclusions 0f Law.

II

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This is a tort action brought under the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) 5 and § 2671, et seq.. 6

*82 2. Plaintiff filed an administrative tort claim with the Federal Aviation Administration on or about March 22,1976, and said claim was deemed denied by operation of law six months thereafter, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 7

3. The type and scope of air safety rules and regulations which the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration prescribes, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1421(a), 8 is a duty within the sole and sound discretion of the Administrator, Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953); Miller v. United States, 378 F.Supp. 1147 (E.D.Kentucky, 1974); Rowe v. United States, 272 F.Supp. 462 (W.D. Penn., 1964); Kullberg v. United States, 271 F.Supp. 788 (W.D.Penn., 1964); Braniff Airways v. United States, 203 F.Supp. 602 (S.D.Florida, 1961).

4. 49 U.S.C. § 1421(a) 9 empowers the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe rules and regulations which promote the safety of aircraft. 49 U.S.C. § 1301(5) 10 defines aircraft in a broad and general manner, thus leaving to the sole and sound discretion of the Administrator the duty of determining what devices constitute aircraft within the meaning of the Act.

5. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) 11 bars suits under the Tort Claims Act for an alleged breach of a discretionary duty on the part of an employee or official of the United States, acting within the course and scope of his or her employment.

6. The Administrator’s alleged failure to determine that hang gliders were aircraft within the meaning of the Federal Aviation Act is a discretionary function, and suit thereon, under the Tort Claims Act, is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 12

7. The Administrator’s alleged failure to promulgate rules and regulations which promote the safety of hang gliders is a discretionary function, and suit thereon, under the Tort Claims Act, is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680

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

Related

McPherson v. Union Oil Co.
628 F. Supp. 265 (S.D. Texas, 1985)
Eckles v. United States
471 F. Supp. 108 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
John E. Starr v. Federal Aviation Administration
589 F.2d 307 (Seventh Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
423 F. Supp. 77, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fielder-v-united-states-cacd-1976.