Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 14747.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14747.,14747. |
| Citation | 211 F.2d 886 |
| Parties | INDIAN TOWING CO., Inc. et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard B. Montgomery, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellant.
M. Hepburn Many, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Paul A. Sweeney, Chief Appellate Sec., Dept. of Justice, Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., George R. Blue, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Leavenworth Colby, Atty., Dept. of Justice, for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and BORAH, Circuit Judges.
Brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Sec. 1346(b) Title 28 U.S.C., the suit was for cargo damage from the wetting of the cargo of the Barge AS-16, while in tow of the tug "Navajo", as a result of the grounding of the tug on Chandeleur Island on or about October 1, 1951, "due solely to the failure of the light on the island."
The claim was that the failure of the light was due to the negligence of Chief Petty Officer Stone and other officers and members of the Coast Guard in charge of "aids to navigation" in failing to properly check the light to see whether it was operating properly between September 7th and October 1st, and that the grounding of the tug was due to the negligence of the Coast Guard in maintaining and servicing the light and in not notifying vessels that it was not functioning.
The United States filing a motion to dismiss, the motion was sustained on the authority of Dalehite v. U. S., 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427.
Appealing from the order, appellants are here insisting that the facts alleged as ground for recovery here do not bring the case within the facts of, or the reasons for, the decision in the Delehite case while appellee as vigorously insists that that decision and the decision in the Feres case1 are controlling here.
We are of the clear opinion that this is so, and that, under the principles, governing the liability of the United States under the invoked act, laid down in those cases, the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indian Towing Company v. United States
...Act, 43 Stat. 1112, 46 U.S.C.A. § 781 et seq. This motion was granted and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed per curiam. 211 F.2d 886. Because the case presented an important aspect of the still undetermined extent of the Government's liability under the Federal Tort Claims......
-
Ray v. United States
...F.2d 681; National Mfg. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 210 F.2d 263; Strangi v. United States, 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 305; Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 886; Danner v. United States, D.C., 114 F.Supp. By now it had gone the full circle: The Eighth Circuit in National Mfg. ci......
-
Blessing v. United States
...of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, which had dismissed the suit for damages against the United States. 211 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1954). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the government's argument that uniquely governmental activities were immun......
-
Fair v. United States
...9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 800. Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 1955, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, reversing Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 886. United States v. Union Trust Co., 1955, 350 U.S. 907, 76 S.Ct. 192, affirming United States v. Union Trust Co. (and comp......