Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

393 F.2d 137

Docket No. 11717.

Strohkorb v. United States

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Jan. 12, 1968.

Decided April 1, 1968.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-04-01

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)

Relies on Strohkorb v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1968-04-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1981

1 federal appellate ·

20196819701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Israel Steingold, Richmond, Va. (Maurice Steingold, and Steingold, Steingold & Chovitz, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

¶2Stephen R. Felson, Attorney, Department of Justice (Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John C. Eldridge, Attorney, Department of Justice, and C. Vernon Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

¶3Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Plaintiff, Strohkorb, brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the alleged negligent operation of an automobile owned and operated by Lt. Wilbur R. Patterson, who was then Officer of the Day at the Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia Beach, Virginia, in charge of Seal Team Units 1 and 2, a part of the Naval Operations Support Group.

¶6Late in the afternoon Lt. Patterson drove his own automobile from the Naval Base to his home in Virginia Beach, a distance of about seven miles, ate his evening meal with his family and commenced his return trip to the Base. While driving upon the public highway at about 7:15 P.M., and when about five miles from the Base, he was involved in an accident when his vehicle struck the plaintiff’s vehicle from the rear. The district court held that there was no liability on the United States and dismissed the action for the reason that, at the time and place of the accident, Lt. *138Patterson was not acting “in line of duty” or “within the scope of his employment.”

¶7The facts and the reasons assigned by the district court in support of the order dismissing the action are fully stated in a memorandum opinion1 on which we now affirm.

¶8Affirmed.

/393/f2d/137 · .json · Public domain