United States v. Harms

96 F. Supp. 1022, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2559
CourtDistrict Court, D. Colorado
DecidedApril 30, 1951
DocketCiv. A. 3262
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 96 F. Supp. 1022 (United States v. Harms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Harms, 96 F. Supp. 1022, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2559 (D. Colo. 1951).

Opinion

KNOUS, District Judge.

In this action the United States seeks to recover damages to a Government-owned automobile resulting from a collision with a truck owned and operated by the citizen defendant and allegedly as the result of his negligence. The defendant has counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages to defendant’s truck arising out of the same collision asserting that such was caused by the negligence of the operator of the Government vehicle.

The United States has moved to dismiss the counterclaim upon the theory that such cannot be maintained against the sovereign. Both sides have submitted briefs which have been considered by the Court.

I am in accord with the conclusion reached, as well as the reasoning, of *1023 the opinion in United States v. Schlitz, D.C.E.D.Virginia, 9 F.R.D. 259, 260, wherein, under a factual situation analogous to that shown by the pleadings in the case at bar, it was decided that a claim assertable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), “may be asserted by counterclaim by the citizen-defendant when sued by the United States for damages, if both claims arise from the same event and are of the same character.” The intimations of United States v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366, 70 S.Ct. 207, 94 L.Ed. 171, and United States v. Fotopulas, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 631, seem to me to be in accord with this disposition.

It is, therefore, ordered that the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim be and the same hereby is overruled.

In making this disposition, I wish to emphasize, as did the Court in United States v. Schlitz, supra, “that counterclaim under the Federal Tort Claims Act is to be allowed only when the claim of the United States originates in the same circumstances, and is of the same nature, as the counterclaim. We do not hold that in every action brought by the United States the defendant may counterclaim for a tort.”

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

Related

Wallace G. Frederick v. United States
386 F.2d 481 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)
United States v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corp.
143 F. Supp. 413 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
United States v. Vernon Cab Co.
125 F. Supp. 335 (D. Massachusetts, 1954)
United States v. WH Pollard Company
124 F. Supp. 495 (N.D. California, 1954)
United States v. Double Bend Mfg. Co.
114 F. Supp. 750 (S.D. New York, 1953)
United States v. Capital Transit Co.
108 F. Supp. 348 (District of Columbia, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. Supp. 1022, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harms-cod-1951.