Blair v. United States
Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. R-75-195 BRT. |
Citation | 433 F. Supp. 217 |
Parties | Ellen BLAIR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Does I thru V, and Doe Corporations I thru V, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Julian C. Smith, Jr., Ltd. by Samuel S. Wardle, Carson City, Nev., for plaintiff.
Lawrence J. Semenza, U.S. Atty. by Samuel Coon, Asst. U.S. Atty., Reno, Nev., for defendants.
Plaintiff instituted this wrongful death action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after plaintiff's decedent drowned in a pool constructed by private persons on land under the care and operation of the Bureau of Land Management. Defendant has now filed a motion for summary judgment relying on the Nevada Sightseer Statute, NRS 41.510. It must therefore be determined if the Sightseer Statute precludes liability, for plaintiff may recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act only if she has a right of recovery under Nevada law.
The facts of the instant case, as gleaned from an uncontroverted record, indicate that plaintiff's decedent, an 11-year-old boy, traveled approximately 25 miles to use the facility. After swimming in the pool for a period of time, his body was thereafter found on the bottom of the pool, a victim of drowning.
NRS 41.510 provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rivera v. Philadelphia Theological Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo, Inc.
...areas even though the statute includes "swimming" in its definition of sport and recreational activities). But cf. Blair v. United States, 433 F.Supp. 217 (D.Nev.1977) (Nevada Sightseer Statute precludes liability for drowning in an outdoor pool constructed by private persons on land in a d......
-
Ducey v. United States, Civ. LV76-245 RDF
...apply. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); see Martin v. United States 546 F.2d 1355 at 1361 (9th Cir.); Smith, 546 F.2d at 878-79; Blair v. United States 433 F.Supp. 217 at 219; Hamilton v. United States 371 F.Supp. 230 at 233. Thus the district court could not choose to follow whatever law it felt to be......
-
Gard v. U.S.
...federal courts have held that they may apply to the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See, e. g., Blair v. United States, 433 F.Supp. 217, 219 (D.Nev.1977) (§ 41.510); Hamilton v. United States, 371 F.Supp. 230, 233-34 (E.D.Va.1974). Such application is consistent with Congre......
-
Neal v. Bently Nevada Corp.
...of intent to injure has been removed from Nevada's definition of willful. Hence, the cases are inapposite. Blair v. United States, 433 F.Supp. 217 (D.C.Nev.1977), does not support its motion because the court did not delineate its definition of Additionally, defendant's reliance on Craigo v......