McMAHON v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 17.
Argued October 17, 1951.
Decided November 5, 1951.
Paul M. Goldstein argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Leavenworth Colby argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Baldridge, Paul A. Sweeney and Herman Marcuse.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a seaman, brought this suit in admiralty alleging in the first count a cause of action based on negligence and unseaworthiness, while in the second count he sought maintenance and cure. He alleged the actionable wrongs to have taken place in November and December .of 1945, but. he did not file his libel until January 22, 1948.
The Act which gives to seamen employed by the United States on government-owned vessels the same rights as those employed on privately owned and operated American vessels provides that claims like those of the petitioner, “. . . if administratively disallowed in whole or in part . . .,” may be enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act. That Act in turn provides that any suit thereunder “. . . shall be brought within two years after the cause of action arises. ...” Courts of Appeals have rendered conflicting decisions as to whether the date of injury or the date of disallowance of the claim commences the period of limitation. The District Court dismissed this petitioner’s complaint on the ground set up by the Government that it was not filed within two years from the dates of his injuries. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on the same ground, adhering to its view expressed in an earlier case, and, it subsequently developed, in agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The contention of the petitioner is that he could not sue until his claim had been administratively disallowed, and that he had no “cause of action” until he could sue. Accordingly, he argues that the period of limitations cannot start to run until his claim has been administratively disallowed because only then does his “cause of action” arise. In his support he points to Thurston v. United States, 179 P. 2d 514, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in accord with his present contentions.
We find ourselves unable to agree with petitioner and the Ninth Circuit, for we think it clear that the proper construction of the language used in the Suits in Admiralty Act is that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the injury. It was enacted several years before suits such as the present, on dis-, allowed claims, were authorized. Certainly during those years the limitation depended upon the event giving-rise to the claims, not upon the rejection. When later the right to sue was broadened to include such claims as this, there was no indication of any change in the limitation contained in the older Act. While, as the court below pointed out, legislation for the benefit of seamen is to be construed liberally in their favor, it is equally true that statutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign. Since no time is fixed within which the seaman is obliged to present his claim, under petitioner’s position he would have it in his power, by delaying its filing, to postpone indefinitely commencement of the running of the statute of limitations and thus to delay indefinitely knowledge by the Government that a claim existed. We cannot construe the Act as giving claimants an option as to when they will choose to start the period of limitation of an action against the United States. Accordingly, we hold that the statute of limitations runs from the date of the injury, and affirm the court below.
It is to be observed that the regulations applicable to the filing of such a claim provide that, if it is not rejected in writing within sixty days from filing, it shall be presumed to have been administratively disallowed and the claimant shall be entitled to enforce his claim. The record filed with us does not disclose when petitioner’s claim was filed or, with precision, when it was disallowed. In view of that state of the record making it uncertain whether the point would have any effect bn the outcome and the fact that petitioner has not raised the point, we find it inappropriate to consider whether the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of sixty days while a claim is pending and not disallowed either by notice or by operation of the regulations.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas think that, for reasons stated in Thurston v. United States, 179 F, 2d 514, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the claim was disallowed and would therefore reverse this judgment.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part.in the.consideration or decision of this cáse.
Clarification Act of March 24, 1943, § 1 (a), 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291 (a).
Suits in Admiralty Act, § 5, 41 Stat. 526, 46 U. S. C. § 745.
91 F. Supp. 593.
186 F. 2d 227; Rodinciuc v. United States, 175 F. 2d 479, 481 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Gregory v. United States, 187 F. 2d 101, 103 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
United States v. Michel, 282 U. S. 656, 659; United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495, 500-501; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586-587.
General Order 32, Administrator, War Shipping Administration, 8 Fed. Reg. 5414, 46 CFR § 304.26.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.