Sandoval v. Davis

Sixth Circuit

Sandoval v. Davis

288 F. 56, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1923

DocketNo. 3740

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 288 F. 56 (Sandoval v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sandoval v. Davis, 288 F. 56, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2109 (6th Cir. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, a soldier of the United States, injured whil^ on active duty through the negligence of employees of the Director General of Railroads, applied for and received an award as compensation for his injuries through the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. Act Sept. 2, 1914, as amended October 6, 1917, and as further amended June 25, 1918, 40 Stat. pp. 405, 408 and 613 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 514a-514vv). He after-wards brought this suit against the Director General of Railroads to recover damages for negligently causing the same injury. On hearing upon pleadings judgment was entered for defendant.

A claim for damages for injuries caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against the Director General of Railroads is a claim against the United States government. Railroad Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. 593, 65 L. Ed. 1087. It .is established by the recent decision of the Supreme Court that a recovery under the federal [57]*57Employees' Compensation Act (Act Sept. 7, 1916, 39 Stat. 742 [Comp. St. §§ 8932a-8932uu]) is a bar to action against the Director General for negligently causing the injury (Dahn v. Davis, 258 U. S. 421, 42 Sup. Ct. 320, 66 L. Ed. 696).

In our opinion the decision in Dahn-v. Davis is controlling of the instant case, notwithstanding the absence from the War Risk Insurance Act of the express provision of section 7 of the federal Employees' Compensation Act, cited in Dahn v. Davis, supra, 258 U. S. at page 429, 42 Sup. Ct. 320, 66 L. Ed. 696, and notwithstanding the reference to pension laws contained in section 312 of the War Risk Insurance Act. We think that an award under the War Risk Insurance Act is not so far a pension within the meaning of that act as to take the case out of the authority of Dahn v. Davis, supra.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, a soldier of the United States, injured whil^ on active duty through the negligence of employees of the Director General of Railroads, applied for and received an award as compensation for his injuries through the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. Act Sept. 2, 1914, as amended October 6, 1917, and as further amended June 25, 1918, 40 Stat. pp. 405, 408 and 613 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 514a-514vv). He after-wards brought this suit against the Director General of Railroads to recover damages for negligently causing the same injury. On hearing upon pleadings judgment was entered for defendant.

A claim for damages for injuries caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against the Director General of Railroads is a claim against the United States government. Railroad Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. 593, 65 L. Ed. 1087. It .is established by the recent decision of the Supreme Court that a recovery under the federal [57]*57Employees' Compensation Act (Act Sept. 7, 1916, 39 Stat. 742 [Comp. St. §§ 8932a-8932uu]) is a bar to action against the Director General for negligently causing the injury (Dahn v. Davis, 258 U. S. 421, 42 Sup. Ct. 320, 66 L. Ed. 696).

In our opinion the decision in Dahn-v. Davis is controlling of the instant case, notwithstanding the absence from the War Risk Insurance Act of the express provision of section 7 of the federal Employees' Compensation Act, cited in Dahn v. Davis, supra, 258 U. S. at page 429, 42 Sup. Ct. 320, 66 L. Ed. 696, and notwithstanding the reference to pension laws contained in section 312 of the War Risk Insurance Act. We think that an award under the War Risk Insurance Act is not so far a pension within the meaning of that act as to take the case out of the authority of Dahn v. Davis, supra.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F. 56, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandoval-v-davis-ca6-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack