Smith v. United States

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Plaintiffs Patrick B. Smith and Bernard Smith appeal from a judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Minnesota* dismissing their action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For reversal plaintiffs argue the district court erred in determining plaintiffs’ claim to be a tort claim and thus barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

¶6For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

¶7Plaintiffs’ action is based upon Minnesota’s Civil Damage Act, Minn.Stat.Ann. § 340.95 (West 1972) (amended 1977),1 a so-called Dram Shop Act. The facts are not disputed by the parties. On May 8,1973, at about 8:30 p. m., plaintiff Patrick Smith was severely injured when he was struck while riding a bicycle by an automobile driven by Dwight G. McQuade, an officer in the Minnesota Air National Guard. The accident occurred in Bloomington, Minnesota. Plaintiff Patrick Smith was fourteen years old at the time of the accident. For some time prior to the time of the accident, McQuade had been drinking intoxicating beverages at the Fort Snelling, Minnesota, Officers Club Open Mess. The government concedes that McQuade was furnished intoxicating liquors to the point of and beyond a state of intoxication by bartenders at the Officers Club Open Mess and that McQuade was intoxicated both when he left the Officers Club Open Mess and when his automobile struck plaintiff Patrick Smith.

¶8Plaintiffs, on September 5, 1973, notified the Fort Snelling Officers Club Open Mess of their intention to make a claim under the Civil Damage Act. Plaintiffs did not file an administrative claim with the Department of the Army.

¶9Plaintiffs filed the present action on January 12, 1978, alleging as a jurisdictional basis the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. The government filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief *1211can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After a hearing, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. The district court concluded that plaintiffs were barred by the operation of the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b),2 because their claim was a tort claim and they failed to file an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrued.

¶10For reversal plaintiffs argue the district court erred in characterizing plaintiffs’ action as a tort claim and in applying the two-year statutory period of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Plaintiffs contend that their theory of liability is based upon breach of contract, that this contract analysis is supported by Minnesota case law, and therefore the applicable statutory period is the six years specified by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).3 We do not agree.

¶11It is well-settled that the filing of an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the bringing of a civil action against the United States for damages for the negligence or wrongful act of any employee of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); see Meeker v. United States, 435 F.2d 1219, 1220 (8th Cir. 1970); Peterson v. United States, 428 F.2d 368, 369 (8th Cir. 1970). Plaintiffs did not file an administrative claim. At most, they notified the Officers Club Open Mess of their intention to do so. This is insufficient. Cf. Miller v. United States, 418 F.Supp. 373, 376 (D.Minn. 1976) (counsel’s letter indicating claim would be made in the future held not sufficient).

¶12It is also clear that 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) specifies a two-year period of limitations for the filing of an administrative claim for tortious conduct. This statutory period is not tolled by the minority of the claimant. Pittmann v. United States, 341 F.2d 739 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 941, 86 S.Ct. 394, 15 L.Ed.2d 351 (1965); Childers v. United States, 316 F.Supp. 539, 542 (S.D.Tex.1970), aff’d, 442 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857, 92 S.Ct. 104, 30 L.Ed.2d 99 (1971).

¶13As noted by the district court, the only question is whether or not plaintiffs’ claim is a tort claim and as such barred by their failure to file an administrative claim within the two-year period of limitations. The applicable law is that of the place of the wrongful conduct, Minnesota. Smith v. United States, 334 F.Supp. 185, 187 (D.Minn.1971); Gore v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 547, 549 (E.D.Mich.1964). In Dahl v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 216, 121 N.W.2d 321, 324 (1963), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that an action for damages under the Minnesota Civil Damage Act is based upon strict liability created by the statute which is tortious and not contractual. See Anderson v. Luitjens, Minn., 247 N.W.2d 913, 915 (1976); Adamson v. Dougherty, 248 Minn. 535, 81 N.W.2d 110, 115 (1947). Thus, under Minnesota law plaintiffs’ claim is characterized as a tort claim, not a contract claim.4*1212Plaintiffs failed to file an administrative claim within two years of the accrual of their tort claim and are barred from further action.

¶14The judgment of the district court is affirmed.