D'ANNA v. United States
Decision Date | 11 April 1950 |
Docket Number | 6033,6034,6035.,No. 6032,6032 |
Citation | 181 F.2d 335 |
Parties | D'ANNA v. UNITED STATES (two cases). THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES. KLAUS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Morgan L. Amaimo and Charles W. Main, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
James B. Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals by plaintiffs from adverse judgments in actions for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq. Plaintiffs are persons who claim to have been injured and damaged as the result of the falling of an auxiliary gasoline tank attached to a naval aeroplane which was participating in a demonstration over the City of Baltimore. The gasoline tank became detached from the aeroplane as it was diving over the city and plummeted to earth striking the fruit stand of the plaintiff Vincent D'Anna in the Lexington Market, where he and the other plaintiffs were standing. The question presented by the appeal is whether there was error on the part of the trial judge in holding that the presumption of liability raised by the Maryland statute from the falling of the gas tank had been rebutted by the evidence offered.
There can be no question but that the liability of the United States under the federal tort claims act is to be determined by the standards and tests of the law of Maryland. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b); State of Maryland to the use of Burkhardt v. United States, 4 Cir., 165 F.2d 869, 871, 1 A.L.R.2d 213. And the liability of the owner of an aeroplane, under the law of Maryland, for injuries occasioned by the falling of an object therefrom is covered by article 1A section 5 of the Maryland Code, which provides: * * *"
It is clear that the case here falls within the presumption raised by the statute; and we think it equally clear that the evidence offered by the government was not sufficient to rebut the presumption. It is undisputed that the tank became detached from the plane while it was flying over the City of Baltimore in a formation with 69 other planes in a public exhibition, and that this occurred during or immediately after a 30 degree dive of more than 7,000 feet. The tank was fastened beneath the plane, attached to the bomb rack by hooks, and no satisfactory explanation is offered as to how it became detached. There was evidence that a pin somehow came out of the bomb rack and that the bomb rack was found afterwards to have spread, but there is no satisfactory showing as to what caused the pin...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ray v. United States
...within ten years' time * * *." 19 The following tort claims cases expressly recognize and apply res ipsa loquitur: D'Anna v. United States, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 335; United States v. Kesinger, 10 Cir., 190 F.2d 529; United States v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 577; United States v. Hull, supra; H......
-
Richards v. United States, 59
...225 F.2d 3; United States v. Praylou, 4 Cir., 208 F.2d 291; Somerset Seafood Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 631; D'Anna v. United States, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 335; Olson v. United States, 8 Cir., 175 F.2d 510; Modla v. United States, D.C., 151 F.Supp. 198; Irvin v. United States, D.C., ......
-
Swanson v. United States
...D.C., 189 F.Supp. 439; Norden v. United States, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 594; Schneider v. United States, D.C., 188 F.Supp. 911; D'Anna v. United States, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 335; Rogow v. United States, D.C., 173 F.Supp. 547, 555; Sapp v. United States, D.C., 153 F.Supp. 496; Des Marais v. Beckman, 1......
-
Bedell v. Goulter
...liable.' The court held that the two cases were governed by the same rule and cited the opinion of Judge Parker in D'Anna v. United States, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 335, 337, where the Restatement, Torts, §§ 519, 520, is relied on as authority for the statement: 'At common law, the hazardous nature......