B-168730, SEP. 1, 1970

B-168730, SEP. 1, 1970

TORTS - LIABILITY DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT INVOLVING A GAO EMPLOYEE WHICH OCCURRED IN MIDDLESBORO, KY. ON BASIS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S VERSION CORROBORATED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF A WITNESS AND THE DAMAGE REPORTS, NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCIDENT UNDER KENTUCKY LAW CAN BE PLACED ON THE EMPLOYEE.

TO D. GENE DILLMAN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 21, 1970, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE CLAIM OF YOUR CLIENT, VERONICA LYNN BURKE, FOR $8,563.19 ($8,582.36 ORIGINAL CLAIM, LESS $19.17 AS PER YOUR LETTER OF JULY 21, 1970), ARISING FROM AN ACCIDENT ON MARCH 27, 1969, IN MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY, INVOLVING MR. ROY P. RILEY, AT THAT TIME AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

THE RECORD BEFORE OUR OFFICE SHOWS THAT MRS. BURKE ALLEGES THAT SHE HAD SLOWED DOWN AND SIGNALED FOR A LEFT TURN, AND THAT, AS SHE WAS MAKING HER LEFT TURN, MR. RILEY ATTEMPTED TO PASS HER AND RAN INTO HER CAR. HOWEVER, MR. RILEY STATES THAT HE SAW NO LEFT TURN SIGNAL, AND THAT AS HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO PASS MRS. BURKE'S CAR, SHE STARTED TO TURN LEFT WHEN HE WAS ALREADY ABREAST OF HER CAR, AND ALTHOUGH HE SWERVED TO ATTEMPT TO AVOID COLLISION, HER CAR STRUCK HIS ON THE RIGHT SIDE DOOR. THE DAMAGE REPORTS ON THE TWO CARS TEND TO CORROBORATE MR. RILEY'S STATEMENT. MOREOVER, WE HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM A WITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT STATING THAT, WHILE MR. RILEY WAS PASSING MRS. BURKE'S CAR, SHE TURNED LEFT INTO HIS PATH WITHOUT A SIGNAL.

ON THE BASIS OF MR. RILEY'S VERSION OF THE INCIDENT, IT IS APPARENT THAT MR. RILEY WOULD HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR THIS ACCIDENT UNDER KENTUCKY LAW AND, EVEN UNDER MRS. BURKE'S VERSION LIABILITY ON THE PART OF MR. RILEY WOULD BE EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL IN VIEW OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES PLACED BY KENTUCKY LAW UPON A DRIVER MAKING A LEFT TURN. SEE COLLETT V TAYLOR, 383 S.W. 2D 692 (KY. APP. 1964); MEYBRIER V BALDWIN, 442 S.W. 2D 585 (KY. APP. 1969); CAMPBELL V MARKHAM, 426 S.W. 2D 431 (KY. APP. 1968); SMITH V SIZE MORE, 300 S.W. 2D 225 (KY. APP. 1957); LOCKRIDGE V MERCER, 438 S.W. 2D 486 (KY. APP. 1968). SEE ALSO DUMAS V YARBROUGH, 221 SO. 2D 288 (LA. APP. 1969); ALLSTATE INS. CO. V ACOSTA, 224 SO. 2D 487 (LA. APP. 1969).

IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CLAIM OF YOUR CLIENT MUST BE DENIED. IF YOUR CLIENT IS DISSATISFIED WITH THIS DENIAL, SHE MAY FILE SUIT IN AN APPROPRIATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOT LATER THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF MAILING OF THIS LETTER. SEE SECTION 14.9 OF TITLE 28, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.