Delorice Bragg v. US
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00683 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999126990].. [11-1342]
Appeal: 11-1342
Doc: 42
Filed: 06/11/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–1342
DELORICE BRAGG, as Administratrix of the Estate of; DON
ISRAEL BRAGG; FREDA HATFIELD, as Administratrix of the
Estate of; ELLERY HATFIELD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:10–cv–00683)
Argued:
May 17, 2012
Decided:
June 11, 2013
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED:
Bruce
E.
Stanley,
REED
SMITH,
LLP,
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for Appellants.
Benjamin Seth Kingsley, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Colin E. Wrabley, Alicia M. Schmitt, Lucas Liben, REED
SMITH, LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellants.
Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; R. Booth Goodwin II,
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Appeal: 11-1342
Doc: 42
Filed: 06/11/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-1342
Doc: 42
Filed: 06/11/2013
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
As
representatives
of
the
estates
of
two
deceased
coal
miners, Appellants brought this negligence and wrongful death
action against the United States of America under the Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(“FTCA”).
Appellants
alleged
that
the
negligence of the Mine Safety and Health Administration in its
safety
inspections
of
the
Aracoma
Coal
Company’s
Alma
Mine
contributed to a fire that resulted in the death of the miners.
The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for
torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of
their 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)(1).
The district court dismissed Appellants’ action because, in
its view, under West Virginia law, a private person under like
circumstances to those alleged against the United States would
not be liable in a negligence action for the wrongful death of
the miners.
This Court, recognizing that Appellants’ challenge of the
district court’s decision turned on a question of West Virginia
state law, certified the following question to the Supreme Court
of
Appeals
of
West
Virginia
3
pursuant
to
the
Uniform
Appeal: 11-1342
Doc: 42
Filed: 06/11/2013
Pg: 4 of 5
Certification of Questions of Law Act, W. Va. Code § 51–1A-1 et
seq.:
Whether a private party conducting inspections of a
mine and mine operator for compliance with mine safety
regulations is liable for the wrongful death of a
miner resulting from the private party’s negligent
inspection?
Bragg v. United States, 488 F. App’x 672, 673 (4th Cir. 2012).
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia unambiguously
answered our question in the affirmative.
That court stated
that factors including “the likelihood of injury, the magnitude
of the burden of guarding against it, and the consequences of
placing that burden” on a defendant “weigh in favor of finding
that a safety inspector owes a duty of care to the employees
whose safety the inspection is intended to secure.”
Bragg v.
United States, __ S.E.2d __, 2013 WL 490776, at *10 (W. Va. Feb.
5, 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
The court plainly “h[e]ld
that a private inspector who inspects a work premises for the
purpose of furthering the safety of employees who work on said
premises
owes
a
duty
inspections
with
commensurate
with
profession.”
of
care
ordinary
to
those
rendered
by
care,
to
members
and
conduct
Id.
that
skill,
employees
of
diligence
his
or
her
In light of this helpful state law guidance, it is now
clear that the district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’
suit
on
the
basis
that
a
private
4
person
under
circumstances
Appeal: 11-1342
Doc: 42
Filed: 06/11/2013
Pg: 5 of 5
analogous to those alleged against the United States would not
be liable under state law was erroneous.
For this reason, we
vacate the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ complaint
and remand the matter for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?