Summary
holding premises liability unavailable against the United States as a matter of law
Summary of this case from Graubarth v. U.S.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-3518 SECTION "C" (2)
March 26, 2003
MINUTE ENTRY
This matter comes before the Court on motion to dismiss, or for summary judgment filed by the defendant, United States of America. Having considered the record, the memoranda of counsel and the law, the Court has determined that the motion should be PARTIALLY GRANTED for the following reasons.
The plaintiff, Carol Ann Slagle ("Slagle"), is a bulk mailer who seeks damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq ("FTCA"), for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she fell off a pallet in an area designated for bulk mailers at the main Metairie post office. In its motion, the United States argues that the plaintiff is alleging a species of strict liability or premises liability which is unavailable to her against the United States as a matter of law. SeeCupit v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 1102 (W.D.La. 1997). The plaintiff does not contest this statement of law, but insists that her complaint does allege acts of negligence cognizable under the FTCA and, alternatively, that she is prepared to amend to name individual negligent workers responsible for her claimed injury.
The plaintiff testified in deposition that while she was looking for a certain sack required for a bulk mailing, peered into a large box on a pallet on her tiptoes, and stepped on plastic bags on an adjacent pallet to reach into the cardboard box. She testified that she realized she could not reach far enough, and fell coming down off the pallet. (Depo. Slagle pp. 56, 62-69, 89)
It is undisputed that the area in which the plaintiff allegedly fell is made available to bulk mailers to drop off bulk mail during certain hours and to retrieve necessary postal supplies at any time. It is also undisputed that a postal worker, Burt Dumas ("Dumas") was assisting Slagle by going to look for a sack in a restricted area at the time of the alleged fall.
In her complaint, Slagle argues that the defendant was at fault for failing to provide and implement a safe method for customers to retrieve sacks, failing to provide sufficient employee assistance, failing to make postal merchandise more accessible, failing to maintain a safe walking area, failing to provide for the safety of persons walking on the premises of the post office. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2). In her opposition, the plaintiff interprets her complaint as postal service employees force customers to access and retrieve mail sacks from the back-dock but fail to provide and implement a safe method for them; fail to provide employee assistance; fail to make equipment and merchandise available; fail to maintain a safe walking area; and fail to provide reasonable safety for people in this area. (Rec. Doc. 18, p. 5).
Some of the plaintiff's claims immediately fail for lack of relevance. Any allegation regarding the safety of walking areas has no relevance to this plaintiff who did not allegedly injure herself while walking. In addition, the plaintiff was being afforded employee assistance at the time under examination. Finally, the defendant has provided proof that this has been the only reported incident of injury in the area between 1995 and 2001. Although it is undisputed that the plaintiff was having difficulty finding the sack she needed in the area at the time of the alleged accident, it is unclear to this Court what negligence on the part of post office employees the defendant claims and how any alleged failure actually caused the plaintiff's accident as described by the plaintiff.
Under § 2674 of the FTCA, "The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . ." This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims for money damages for personal injury:
. . . caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b). While it is difficult to discern how the plaintiff can claim negligence in light of the lack of previous accidents in the area and under the circumstances surrounding the accident, the Court will give the plaintiff one final opportunity to articulate the basis for her claims by amendment.
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, treated as a motion for summary judgment, is PARTIALLY GRANTED as to any strict liability claim. The plaintiff shall amend her complaint within ten days to properly specify her claims against the defendant.