United States v. Bowers, 14287.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 14287.,14287. |
| Citation | 202 F.2d 139 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BOWERS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Holvey Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., Charles F. Herring, U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for appellant.
Harold L. Sims, Robert L. Holliday and Harold S. Long, El Paso, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and STRUM and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.1
Early on the morning of June 25, 1950, the plaintiff was driving his automobile on one of the mountain roads in the Elephant Butte Recreation Area operated and main tained by the Government in Sierra County, New Mexico. The road was about twenty-three and one-half feet wide, very mountainous and full of curves. According to the findings of fact by the district court, "This was about 6:00 o'clock a. m. and the rising sun was in such a position that it struck plaintiff full in the face as his car headed east, so that plaintiff was somewhat blinded, and the righthand wheels of his car angled off the edge of the road, and thus continued to move forward for several feet, when gravity overtook the vehicle and it tumbled sideways down the precipice into the rocky canyon below."
The court found that "the road in question did not cave-in, crumble or collapse at the place where the automobile left the highway" and further "that the defendant was not negligent in failing to erect and maintain guard rails or other suitable barriers along the outer edge of said road at the place of accident sufficient to repel the momentum of a moving automobile."
Liability was based on the court's finding that the Government was negligent "in failing to erect and maintain along the outer edge of said road suitable posts or other warning devices" and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and of plaintiff's injuries and damages.
Assuming without deciding that the negligence found by the court is within the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act, we are of the opinion that under the evidence the finding of negligence proximately causing the plaintiff's injuries was clearly erroneous. The plaintiff admitted that he had used the road dozens of times, was thoroughly familiar with it, that he knew there were no guard rails on it, and that he knew where the edge of the road was.2 Failure to warn the plaintiff could not have been negligence proximately causing his injuries when he was already so familiar with the road as to appreciate the peril, 2 Am.Law Institute, Restatement of Torts, § 340; 38 Am Jur., Negligence, § 91.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed.
Reversed.
1 60 Stat. 842, now appearing as 28 U.S.C.A. 1346(b), 2401(b) and 2671 et seq.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schenebeck v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
...on non-drug liability cases such as Allen v. Lake Catherine Footwear Corp., 246 Ark. 234, 437 S.W.2d 803 (1969); United States v. Bowers, 202 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1953),2 holding that a failure to warn is not a proximate cause of the injury where the danger is obvious, has no application to t......
-
Oliver v. Hallett Construction Company
...which he was thoroughly familiar. This cannot be called a trap. There has been cited to us as being directly in point United States v. Bowers, 5 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 139. Therein the plaintiff was driving in a recreation area maintained by the United States government. The trial court found......
-
Allen v. Lake Catherine Footwear Corp.
...the failure of appellee to give any warning to Allen was not the proximate cause of the accident and injuries sustained. In United States v. Bowers, 202 F.2d 139, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in reversing a judgment under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 'Assuming w......
- United States v. United Steelworkers of America, 185