United States v. Richard M. Romitti

This is an appeal from a judgment against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346 (b), 2674, for damages resulting from an automobile accident caused by the negligent driving of Mr. Moore, an employee of the United States.

All agree that the question presented is whether under the doctrine of respondeat superior as applied in California (where Mr. Moore's negligent act occurred) a private employer would be liable for plaintiff’s injuries in the circumstances of this case. See, e. g., McCall v. United States, 338 F.2d 589, 592 *664 (9th Cir. 1964); Witt v. United States, 319 F.2d 704, 707-708 (9th Cir. 1963). The United States contends the district Court erred in holding that Mr. Moore “was operating his automobile within the course and scope of his employment” when the accident occurred. Under California law this was a determination to be made by the trier of fact upon a weighing of all of the pertinent circumstances. Loper v. Morrison, 23 Cal.2d 600 , 145 P.2d 1 (Sup.Ct.Cal.1944). The issue is whether the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

The evidence was as follows. Mr. Moore was employed by the United States as an electronics…

(concurring).

I concur in the result but not in the opinion.

363 F.2d 662 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Richard M. ROMITTI et al., Appellees. No. 19853. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. July 18, 1966. John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., Morton Hollander, John C. Eldridge, Walter H. Fleischer, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant. E. Eugene Davis, Jr., Patrick Davis, of Hindman & Davis, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BARNES, MERRILL, and BROWNING, Circuit Judges. BROWNING, Circuit Judge. 1 This is an appeal from a judgment against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346 (b), 2674, for damages resulting from an automobile accident caused by the negligent driving of Mr. Moore, an employee of the United States. 2 All agree that the question presented is whether under the doctrine of respondeat superior as applied in California (where Mr. Moore's negligent act occurred) a private employer would be liable for plaintiff's injuries in the circumstances of this case. See, e. g., McCall v. United States, 338 F.2d 589, 592 (9th Cir. 1964); Witt v. United States, 319 F.2d 704, 707-708 (9th Cir. 1963). The United States…