The questions of negligence and liability regarding the accident are no longer in dispute. The Solicitor's opinion, supra, states that "a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Government employee was negligent * *. The

claim therefore should be paid." The sole remaining issue in argument is the measure of damages.

The total of $99.55 is an unnotarized estimate of repairs for the Curtis car, dated September 7, 1937. The total of $25.38 is the amount of the receipted repair bill dated September 28, 1937. Both the estimate and the bill were made out by the Auto Craft Shop, Great Falls, Mont. The Curtis car was a 1928 Chrysler sedan. The September to October 1937 issue of the National Used Car Market Report Blue Book lists 1928 Chrysler sedans as having a value between $15 and $25 at that time.

The rule for determining the amount of damages for injuries to an automobile is that compensation up to the market value of the car is recoverable for those repairs made necessary by the accident. Babbitt on Motor Vehicle Law (4th ed., sec. 2325), states the rule as entitling the claimant to the difference in the value of his car immediately before and immediately after the accident. Obviously, the largest amount that could be recovered under this rule is the total value of the car just before the collision. The amount of compensation allowed in the Solicitor's opinion of February 20, 1939, is substantially the same as the highest value given for 1928 Chrysler sedans in the National Used Car Market Report Blue Book for September 1937. It seems that $99.55, the amount claimed by Mr. Curtis, is disproportionately large, even if he could show that his car had an exceptionally high value compared to others of its make, model, and year. It is doubtful that his car was actually worth four times the average.

Even if Mr. Curtis could prove that his car had a value greater than $25, he is entitled to compensation only for the repairs actually made necessary by the accident. The best evidence submitted in the record as to the amount he had to spend for such repairs is the receipted repair bill of September 28, 1937, which is in the amount of $25.38.

I assume that you will advise Senator Wheeler and Mr. Curtis of the abovestated reasons for the measure of damage applied in the opinion of February 20, 1939. In the circumstances it does not appear that any greater amount of compensation is justified.

Senator B. K. WHEELER,

Washington, D. C.

NATHAN R. MARGOLD, Solicitor.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., March 6, 1939.

DEAR MR. WHEELER: Thank you for yours of the 4th pertaining to our claim for damages.

I also thank you for your interest and efforts in this matter. Although the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation seems to think that his decision closes the deal and that we are compelled to accept his figures, I do not have that same feeling-for reasons set forth below.

The $99.55 was actual appraised value of repairs to put car back into as good working condition as before this accident happened. As testified, this car, even though an old model, was in perfect condition and our family car, very satisfactory to every member of the family-consisting of six-valued far more valuable than the "book value of 1928," of which Mr. Thomas speaks or refers to.

The driver of Reclamation car tells a barefaced lie when he says we had only "one light." Our witnesses refute this falsehood-even Mr. Thomas concedes this in a measure.

Their driver also states he "was in the middle of the road." Another bold falsehood, as he was 6 feet over on our side of the highway, as our witnesses also swear to, and they are much more to be relied on than the kid who was driving the Reclamation truck who is lying to save his own hide.

In reference to Mr. Thomas' statement that our estimate of $99.55 was "based on an estimate of repairs which apparently included parts and labor which were extraneous to the collision." I cannot say where Mr. Thomas got his idea of this other than from Mr. Walker of Fairfield who was determined from the first, right or wrong, we were to get nothing from this act of vandalism committed by one of his incompetent errand boys who lies to shield himself from blame-against affidavits of three competent witnesses who willingly back me up in all that I have presented as being facts and nothing but facts.

It is true that I had repairs to the extent of $25.38 (I take his word for it without looking it up), but I did this pending settlement from the Reclamation Department-just the repairs necessary to put the car on its wheels so I would not loose the use of it-I could not afford more expense at the time, I could not afford that much, but had to do it as I had to have my car and could not bear the expense of a new one then. I cannot let this rest on the verdict of Mr. Thomas as I feel that he is not the law and that his verdict is apt to be somewhat biased in favor of the Reclamation Department. I leave it to you, Mr. Wheeler, but rather than carry this on indefinitely may I suggest a settlement of $75 on a compromise be considered in the face of Mr. Thomas' feeling that perhaps there were parts and labor which were extraneous to the collision," which we do not concede.

Very kindly,

C. W. CURTIS.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTerior,
Washington, February 20, 1939.

The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR:

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: C. W. Curtis, of Great Falls, Mont., has filed a claim in the amount of $99.55 against the United States for compensation for damage to his 1928 Chrysler sedan as the result of a collision with a Bureau of Reclamation truck operated by Mathew Morris, an enrollee in Company No. 4760, Civilian Conservation Corps. The question whether the claim should be paid under section 16 of the act of June 28, 1937 (50 Stat: 321), has been submitted to me for opinion.

The collision occurred on September 4, 1937, at a point on the county road 5 miles west of Augusta, Mont. The Government driver admits that he was "driving down the center of the road" at a speed of about 20 miles an hour. He further says that as he reached the top of a small hill he collided with an approaching car (that of the claimant). The enrollee driver and Norman Jones, another enrollee riding in the truck with him, contend that the claimant's car had only one light burning when they sighted it just previous to the accident, and that the poor and insufficient lights were a contributing factor to the collision. The Government driver's statement reads in part:

6* ** I was in the center of the road but due to the poor lights of the approaching car I could not get to my side of the road until I was right on him. I immediately applied the brakes upon seeing him, but the distance was too short to stop."

The record shows that immediately following the collision only one headlight on the claimant's car would light, but the claimant contends that the other was made defective by the collision. Statements have been secured from the three witnesses who were passengers in the claimant's car, all of whom are positive that both headlights were burning before the collision, as evidenced by the small green indicator lights in the rear of the headlight cases.

A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Government employee was negligent in crowding the center of the road and while we have conflicting testimony as to whether the claimant was contributorily negligent in driving with only one headlight burning, the testimony appears to favor the claimant on this point. The claim therefore should be paid, but only to the extent of $25.38, the actual amount expended by the claimant in repairing the damage caused by the collision, as shown by certified receipted repair bill. The amount of the original claim, namely $99.55, was based on an estimate of repairs which apparently included parts and labor which were extraneous to the collision, and which was disproportionate to the prevailing book value of this 1928 car. Upon acceptance by the claimant of the sum allowed, the claim should be paid in the amount of $25.38. Respectfully,

Approved: February 20, 1939.

JOHN H. THOMAS, Acting Solicitor. OSCAR L. CHAPMAN, Assistant Secretary.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., March 6, 1939.

Senator B. K. WHEELER,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. WHEELER: Thank you for yours of the 4th pertaining to our claim for damages.

I also thank you for your interest and efforts in this matter. Although the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation seems to think that his decision closes the deal and that we are compelled to accept his figures I do not have that same feeling-for reasons set forth below.

The $99.55 was actual appraised value of repairs to put car back into as good working condition as before this accident happened. As testified, this car, even though an old model, was in perfect condition and our family car, very satisfactory to every member of the family-consisting of six-valued far more valuable than the "book value of 1928," of which Mr. Thomas speaks or refers to. The driver of Reclamation car tells a barefaced lie when he says we had only "one light." Our witnesses refute this falsehood-even Mr. Thomas concedes this in a measure.

Their driver also states he "was in the middle of the road." Another bold falsehood, as he was 6 feet over on our side of the highway, as our witnesses also swear to, and they are much more to be relied on than the kid who was driving the Reclamation truck who is lying to save his own hide.

In reference to Mr. Thomas' statement that our estimate of $99.55 was "based on an estimate of repairs which apparently included parts and labor which were extraneous to the collision."

I cannot say where Mr. Thomas got his idea of this other than from Mr. Walker of Fairfield who was determined from the first, right or wrong, we were to get nothing from this act of vandalism committed by one of his incompetent errand boys who lies to shield himself from blame—against affidavits of three competent witnesses who willingly back me up in all that I have presented as being facts and nothing but facts.

It is true that I had repairs to the extent of $25.38 (I take his word for it without looking it up), but I did this pending settlement from the Reclamation Department-just the repairs necessary to put the car on its wheels so I would not loose the use of it-I could not afford more expense at the time, I could not afford that much, but had to do it as I had to have my car and could not bear the expense of a new one then.

I cannot let this rest on the verdict of Mr. Thomas as I feel that he is not the law and that his verdict is apt to be somewhat biased in favor of the Reclamation Department. I leave it to you, Mr. Wheeler, but rather than carry this on indefinitely may I suggest a settlement of $75 on a compromise be considered in the face of Mr. Thomas' feeling that perhaps there "parts and labor which were extraneous to the collision," which we do not concede.

Very kindly,

C. W. CURTIS.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

January 10, 1940.

In re S. 2457, "For the relief of Clayton W. Curtis."

Hon. EDWARD R. Burke,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Claims, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR BURKE: I am submitting to you herewith for the consideration of your committee, an affidavit and two letters from Mr. Curtis relative to the above bill. These are self-explanatory.

The Department in reporting on this bill took the position that since Mr. Curtis only expended $25.38 for the repair of his car, that was all to which he was entitled. But you will note from the enclosed correspondence that Mr. Curtis needed his car immediately for use in his business and could not wait until the Reclamation Service allowed the estimated amount of $99.55. Furthermore, you will note that he could not afford more expenses at that time and therefore only made such repairs as would put his car "on its wheels," and give him the use of it. The question of negligence is admitted on the part of the Government. I shall appreciate it very much if your committee will give this case further consideration and hope it is possible for them to take favorable action.

With kindest regards, I am

Cordially yours,

B. K. WHEELER.

Mr. BURTON K. WHEELER,

CURTIS GROCERY & MARKET,
Great Falls, Mont., July 22, 1939.

Senator from Montana, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Yours of June 26, in which you enclose one from Interior Department regarding bill for damages:

You suggest that we make sworn statement regarding the necessity for temporary repairs to damaged car in question.

I tried to convey the impression throughout my plea just how necessary and very important this car was to us in our business.

I do therefore swear and affirm that said car was used in the solicitation of orders, special pick-up and rush deliveries, and messenger service in connection with our meat and grocery business in addition to our truck-delivery service.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., June 10, 1939.

BURTON K. WHEELER,

Senator from Montana, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Thank you for yours of the 23d of May in which you enclose a copy of "bill for relief" covering amount of this damage to our car.

I also thank you for that of June 7, just received today-enclosing final from Department of the Interior.

If it were not for your fairness on this matter and the feeling that you would fight this thing through to the finish for us it would look dark, however we are not giving up, feeling that, in spite of the statements regarding the valuation of our car and the expense of repairs, as maintained by the above-mentioned Department, will not influence you inasmuch as you are able to weigh the evidence in the proper light.

As we testify and still maintain, this was our family car and in A-1 shape in spite of the fact that it was an old car. The value was not based on National Used Car Market Blue Book value as stated by the Interior Department. The car was not for sale and it was as valuable to us as any car and was serving us perfectly. So why can the Government "jim it up" for us and set their own value on it?

As to the repair of $25.38 which they state we put on the car-this is truebut (as I stated before) this was only temporary repair pending settlement from this accident.

I was using the car about town (only) with these limited repairs, expecting prompt settlement considering the nature of the accident and the case we had against the Civilian Conservation Corps, but it seems that our old Uncle Sam is not as fair as we once thought he was.

It is quite evident that Walker's intentions (right from the first) were that we were not going to get justice as he fairly laughed in our face.

Now, Mr. Wheeler, if we were grafting on this business and endeavoring to put something over it would be a different story.

You, with your ability to weigh evidence, and being experienced with other Government matters, are able to hold out for the right and with this feeling I am sure that you will see us through with this.

We urge that you use your office to see that this bill is allowed and that you will not be influenced by such statement from the defendant narrowed down to their views.

Kindly,

C. W. CURTIS.

76TH CONGRESS 3d Session

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 1454

DAN A. TARPLEY, ERNEST H. TARPLEY, AND PEARL TARPLEY

APRIL 18 (legislative day, APRIL 8), 1940.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. HUGHES, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 3388]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3388) for the relief of Dan A. Tarpley, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with the following amendments:

On page 1, line 6, strike out "of Rickreall, Oregon".

On page 1, line 6, strike out the figures "$2,500" and insert "$1,945.83; to Ernest H. Tarpley, the sum of $500, and to Pearl Tarpley, the sum of $1,000, all residents of Rickreall, Oregon,".

On page 1, line 7, strike out "his claim" and insert "all their claims".

On

page 1, line 8, strike out "him" and insert "them".

On page 1, line 9, strike out "his parents" and insert "Ernest H. Tarpley".

On page 1, line 11, strike out "claimant's farm" and insert "farm of Dan A. Tarpley".

On page 1, line 12, and on page 2, line 1, strike out "such claimant" and insert "Dan A. Tarpley".

Amend the title of the bill so as to read:

A bill for the relief of Dan A. Tarpley, Ernest H. Tarpley, and Pearl Tarpley. The bill, as amended, provides for the payment of $1,945.83 to Dan A. Tarpley, $500 to Ernest H. Tarpley, $1,000 to Pearl Tarpley, all residents of Rickreall, Oreg., in full satisfaction of all their claims against the United States on account of personal injuries sustained by them when a 37-mm. shell exploded in the home of Ernest H. Tarpley on May 29, 1938, at Rickreall, Oreg., such shell having been shot onto the farm of Dan A. Tarpley by National Guard men in carrying out an artillery problem, but which remained unexploded until Dan A. Tarpley, not realizing its dangerous character, carried it into his parents' home where it was inadvertently dropped and exploded.

S. Repts., 76-3, vol. 2- -85