Mahoney v. United States

220 F. Supp. 823, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7703
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedJuly 16, 1963
DocketCiv. A. 4214, 4330, 4395
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 220 F. Supp. 823 (Mahoney v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mahoney v. United States, 220 F. Supp. 823, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7703 (E.D. Tenn. 1963).

Opinion

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, Chief Judge.

These cases, three in number, are actions to recover damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) 1 and Section 2674.

The Act makes the Government liable “respecting * * * tort claims * * * in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Discretionary functions or duties are excepted.. § 2680(a). 2

The Government, through the Atomic-Energy Commission, hereinafter some *825 times called AEC, is engaged in a program of production and development of atomic energy at Oak Eidge, Tennessee. Plaintiffs were employees of Union Carbide Nuclear Corporation, an operating ■division of Union Carbide Corporation, hereinafter sometimes called Carbide, that operates the production facilities at Oak Ridge at the instance of AEC under a cost type Government contract with the United States.

This Court has previously held that Carbide is an independent contractor in the operation of the Government plants at Oak Ridge. (Mahoney v. United States, D. C., 216 F.Supp. 523.)

Plaintiff Mahoney claims that the disease which renders him permanently and totally disabled and the other two plaintiffs claim that the deaths of their respective intestates were caused by the negligence of the Government in the ■operation of the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant K-25 in that the living plaintiff and the two decedents in the ■course of their employment were exposed to radioactive substances or tolxic gases. 'That the defendant failed to provide adequate safeguards, failed to furnish a safe place to work, failed to provide adequate medical supervision, proper equipment, proper protective clothing, particularly respirators or gas masks necessary to screen out any toxic gases or radioactive materials to prevent the employees from breathing them.

Plaintiffs claim further that defendant violated Sections 50-401 3 and 50-403 4 ■of the Tennessee Code and that such violations were the proximate cause of their injuries.

Plaintiffs likewise claim that their conditions were either caused or accelerated from toxic gases and radioactive materials to which they were subjected and that as a result plaintiff’s intestate Wilson Kirk Beckham died on April 24, 1962 from Hodgkin’s disease, which is a type of blood cancer, and plaintiff’s intestate Howard N. Pierce died on January 13, 1961 from acute granulocytic 5 leukemia and plaintiff Mahoney is presently suffering from chronic lymphatic leukemia.

Plaintiffs also claim that the operation of the K-25 plant constituted an ultra-hazardous activity and that the United States had a non-delegable duty to assure its operation in such a manner as to avoid injury to plaintiff or plaintiffs’ decedents.

The Government denies all acts of negligence and also denies plaintiffs (plaintiffs will be used hereafter at times as if Pierce and Beckham were living) were engaged in inherently dangerous or ultra-hazardous activities. The Government further denies that there was any causal relation between plaintiffs’ diseases and their employment.

Contributory negligence is pleaded as a bar to the actions. Defendant denies that Sections 50-401 and 50-403, T.C.A., apply to the operation of the Diffusion Plant at Oak Ridge but if applicable, that any of the sections were violated.

It is claimed that the operation of the Oak Ridge plants is a discretionary function which exempts the Government from liability (28 U.S.C. § 2680) and that plaintiffs’ actions are barred by the two-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2401).

The controlling issues in the case are:

(a) Was the Government guilty of any act of negligence that proximately caused the disability of the living plaintiff and the disabilities and deaths of plaintiffs’ intestates ?

*826 (b) If the Government was guilty of proximate negligence, were plaintiffs guilty of proximate contributory negligence or remote contributory negligence? (Proximate contributory negligence would bar a recovery under Tennessee law and remote contributory negligence would mitigate the damages.)

(c) Was there a causal relation between the work of plaintiffs as employees of Carbide and their physical condition and deaths. (If the answer to issue (a) is “No,” issues (b) and (c) will not be reached.)

It was stipulated that defendant was not negligent in the selection of Carbide as the operator of the' K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

AEC is charged with the responsibility of conducting research and development activities in the field of atomic energy in its own facilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2051, 2050.

AEC is the exclusive owner of all production facilities (with certain limited exceptions) for special nuclear materials and is charged with the responsibility for the production of such materials in its production facilities under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2061.

Negligence and causal relation are prerequisites to recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2674. (The pertinent parts of these sections have been quoted.)

Liability does not arise against the Government solely by its ownership of an “inherently dangerous commodity” or engaging in an “extra-hazardous activity.” Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 44-45, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427; Strangi v. United States, 211 F.2d 305 (C.A. 5).

The Government cannot be charged with negligence of the employees of an independent contractor under the non-delegable rule of local law. United States v. Hull, 195 F.2d 64, 67 (C.A. 1); Hopson v. United States, 136 F.Supp. 804 (D.C.W.D.Ark.); Pierce v. United States, D.C., 142 F.Supp. 721, affirmed in 6 Cir., 235 F.2d 466.

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

Related

Dyer v. United States
96 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Tennessee, 2000)
James Depass v. United States
721 F.2d 203 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)
Krumback v. Dow Chemical Co.
676 P.2d 1215 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1983)
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
485 F. Supp. 566 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1979)
In Re Bomb Disaster at Roseville, Cal., on April 28
438 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. California, 1977)
Latham v. Technar, Inc.
390 F. Supp. 1031 (E.D. Tennessee, 1974)
McGarry v. United States
370 F. Supp. 525 (D. Nevada, 1973)
Boyd v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.
375 F. Supp. 1052 (E.D. Virginia, 1973)
Carl C. Womble v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
431 F.2d 985 (Sixth Circuit, 1970)
Ernest E. Frankenberg v. Southern Railway Company
424 F.2d 507 (Sixth Circuit, 1970)
Clifford Gowdy v. United States
412 F.2d 525 (Sixth Circuit, 1969)
Womble v. J. C. Penney Co.
47 F.R.D. 350 (E.D. Tennessee, 1969)
Mann v. United States
294 F. Supp. 691 (E.D. Tennessee, 1968)
Gilbert Earl Yates v. United States
365 F.2d 663 (Fourth Circuit, 1966)
Richardson v. United States
251 F. Supp. 107 (W.D. Tennessee, 1966)
Gibbs v. United States
251 F. Supp. 391 (E.D. Tennessee, 1965)
Kuhne v. United States
250 F. Supp. 523 (E.D. Tennessee, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 F. Supp. 823, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-united-states-tned-1963.