TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Douglas B. Fugate, State Highway Commissioner of Virginia

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Douglas B. FUGATE, State Highway Commissioner of Virginia, Appellee

Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fugate, 569 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 20, 1978
Docket
No. 77-1287
Judges
Field, Hall, Per Curiam, Widener
Citations
569 F.2d 2131978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12956

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company filed this action as subrogee to recover the monies it had paid as insurer for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an accident which occurred on U.S. Rt. 21-52 near Bastían, Virginia. Lumber-mens alleged that a stretch of this highway was negligently designed and maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways *214 and Transportation and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The district court, holding that the Commonwealth of Virginia was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, dismissed the action. The plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff contended that Virginia had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by the acceptance and disbursement of federal funds pursuant to the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 101 , et seq.

In rejecting this contention the district court relied upon the Third Circuit’s decision in Daye v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 483 F.2d 294 (1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 946 , 94 S.Ct. 1956 , 40 L.Ed.2d 298 . In that case, which was strikingly similar to the one at hand, the court stated:

“We do not find such a waiver merely because Pennsylvania receives federal highway funds. We have carefully examined the various provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act and the Highway Safety Act, the committee reports explaining the sections of those Acts, and debates that took place when the Acts were considered and passed. We are unable to say that Congress conditioned the receipt of those funds upon the states’ willingness to waive their immunity from tort liability; nor are we able to say that Congress intended a waiver to implicitly take place by its mere enactment of the Highway Safety Act.” (Footnote omitted.) 483 F.2d at 298 .

The principle that mere participation in a federal program does not establish consent on the part of a state to be sued in the federal courts was recognized by the Court in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), and in our opinion was appropriately applied by the district court in the dismissal of this case.

Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1988: 119882026peak 1988 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. Bernier701 F. Supp. 1171 (D. Maryland 1988)

Most recent

  1. Smith v. Bernier701 F. Supp. 1171 (D. Maryland 1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) 5,767
Meyers v. Pennsylvania, 416 U.S. 946 (1974) 26
Hubert Daye v. The Commonwealth of Pa. Mindy Meyers, an Infant, by Her Parent & Natural Guardian, Marvin Meyers v. The Commonwealth of Pa., 483 F.2d 294 (3d Cir. 1973) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list