Wynkoop v. The United States of America
5:20-cv-00004
| W.D. Va. | Dec 23, 2020Background
- On January 10, 2017, Ernest Wynkoop fell through a collapsed stair while touring a house at 1875 River Road, Elkton, VA, a HUD-owned property; he sustained a rotator cuff tear and other injuries and later filed suit.
- HUD acquired title to the property after an FHA insurance claim and assigned it to contractor BLM Companies, Inc. (an FSM) on July 21, 2016, under a HUD contract that required maintenance and that stairs/handrails be kept secure.
- Wynkoop sued the United States (FTCA claim) alleging negligence in maintaining the premises; the government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).
- The government initially argued failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the independent-contractor exception to the FTCA; exhaustion was later conceded, leaving only the jurisdictional FTCA issue.
- The court concluded HUD contracted with an independent contractor (BLM) to perform the contested maintenance and that Wynkoop did not allege facts (e.g., inherently dangerous work) to avoid the independent-contractor exception.
- The court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA waives sovereign immunity for injuries caused by contractor-performed maintenance | Wynkoop: owner’s nondelegable duty to keep premises safe under Virginia law makes government directly liable | United States: FTCA does not waive immunity for negligence of independent contractors; HUD contracted maintenance to BLM | Court: Independent-contractor exception applies; sovereign immunity not waived; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether a nondelegable-duty or inherently-dangerous-work exception makes the government directly liable | Wynkoop: cites authorities holding direct liability where nondelegable duty exists | United States: those authorities apply to inherently dangerous or special-danger work and are inapplicable here | Court: Wynkoop alleged no inherently dangerous work; cited cases inapposite; exception does not save claim |
| Administrative-exhaustion requirement (jurisdictional) | Wynkoop: exhausted administrative remedies | United States: initially argued failure to exhaust | Court: exhaustion conceded by government; not at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 1995) (FTCA excludes liability for acts of independent contractors)
- Berkman v. United States, 957 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1992) (independent-contractor exception bars FTCA suits based solely on contractor negligence; government liable only for its own failures)
- Broussard v. United States, 989 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1993) (supports FTCA independent-contractor exception)
- McCall v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 914 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizes nondelegable-duty liability for inherently dangerous work)
- Gardner v. United States, 780 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1986) (similar rule: direct liability where contractor performs work involving special dangers)