Allison v. United States
| Decision Date | 26 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 1937-D. |
| Citation | 264 F. Supp. 1021 |
| Parties | Stanley ALLISON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
John A. Lambright, Danville, Ill., for plaintiff.
Eugene N. Hamilton, and A. T. Giattina, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Raymond F. Rose, Asst. U. S. Atty., Danville, Ill., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A trial of the issues in this case was had before the Court without a jury on December 5, 1966. Upon a review of the pleadings and after hearing all of the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the government, as well as argument of counsel, all of which were fully considered, this court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff, a resident of the State of Illinois, filed this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), for injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant's agents or employees acting within the scope and course of their employment.
2. During a period from two months to one year prior to May 6, 1961, one Leonard Belson, d/b/a Paxton Salvage Company, at Paxton, Illinois, purchased as scrap certain hydraulic shock absorbers along with other scrap material from Chaunte Air Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois. These hydraulic shock absorbers were previously a part of the landing gear of an airplane from Chanute Air Force Base. The contract of sale specified that the material was purchased on an "as is" basis and that it was sold as scrap without warranty that it was fit for that purpose.
3. Plaintiff was an employee of said Leonard Belson and on the date of the accident, May 6, 1961, was engaged in cutting one of these shock absorbers with an acetylene torch when it "exploded."
4. The landing gear shock absorber contained hydraulic fluid which will not explode when heat is applied to it under atmospheric conditions.
5. Said landing gear shock absorbers are not inherently or unreasonably dangerous.
6. That the plaintiff had not vented the shock absorber on which he was working at the time of the accident, nor did he know it to be vented and had assumed it was like the one the day before.
7. Plaintiff's employer and foreman, two experienced welders, testified that it is the standard safe practice among welders to make sure that any sealed container has an air hole in it before applying to it an acetylene or other cutting torch. This procedure is followed so as to prevent thermal expansion and avoid the danger of an explosion. Plaintiff's employer and foreman stated that it was their practice to follow this procedure in their business before cutting on landing gear shock absorbers similar to the one involved in this case.
8. That plaintiff had prior experience in the use of torches and knew of the danger involved and of the proper precautions that should be taken.
9. That plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety and was therefore contributorily negligent.
10. The proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE BOMB DISASTER AT ROSEVILLE, CAL., ON APRIL 28
...of the statutory language may be significant. Additional dicta disapproving strict liability in tort appears in Allison v. United States, 264 F.Supp. 1021 (Ill.1967), a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover only on a theory of negligence of the United States' agents or employees. Pl......
-
Galanos v. United States
...to all those whom we could or should foresee as entering that zone." This Court notes also that the Government cites Allison v. U.S., 264 F.Supp. 1021 (E.D.Ill.1967), which holds, in relevant part, that the Government is not (1) obligated under the FTCA to warn of obvious dangers, (2) under......
-
Konsler v. United States
...United States v. Page, 350 F.2d 28 (10th Cir.1965); United States v. Taylor, 236 F.2d 649, 653 (6th Cir.1956); Allison v. United States, 264 F.Supp. 1021 (E.D.Ill.1967). Therefore, it is settled that the Federal Tort Claims Act requires a "negligent or wrongful" act that has caused injury a......
-
Elkins v. United States
...a procedure being obviously dangerous to any reasonably prudent man. The defendant's brief cites the recent case of Allison v. United States, 264 F.Supp. 1021 (E.D.Ill.1967) to support its argument that the defendant was under no duty to warn persons handling high pressure scrap tires of ob......