Jimison v. United States, 22702.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 22702.,22702. |
| Citation | 427 F.2d 1133 |
| Parties | Ethel JIMISON and Ray Jimison, Plaintiffs-Apellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Dale Cox (argued), of McDonough & Cox, Glendive, Mont., Gene Huntley (argued), Baker, Mont., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Eugene Lalonde (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Otis L. Packwood, U. S. Atty., Clifford E. Schleusner, Asst. U. S. Atty., Billings, Mont., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWNING and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and PENCE,* District Judge.
In July 1963, in Montana, a government employee placed an obstruction in one lane of a two-lane bridge, without complying with Montana's applicable laws on warning signs. About midday, with weather clear and dry, with visibility good and unobstructed for a distance of about one-half mile along a straight road to the bridge, the driver of the car in which plaintiffs were riding had no problem in seeing the obstruction ahead, and gradually bringing his car to a halt. After from 4 to 10 seconds had then passed, a second car coming along that same straight road rear-ended the first car, injuring plaintiffs.
This second driver testified that he never at any time saw the obstruction or the first car until, while traveling 55-60 mph, he saw the first car about 130 feet ahead of him, stopped.
Plaintiffs sued the United States on the theory that the negligent failure of its employee to maintain the warnings of highway obstruction required by Montana statutes was the proximate cause of the collision and plaintiffs' injuries.
Upon trial, the trial judge, Honorable William Jameson, long familiar with Montana law, found that the driver of the second car had clear and unobstructed view of both the first car and the obstruction on the bridge for at least a half mile, and then held that under Montana law it was that driver's duty to see what was in plain sight, with the legal effect then, that he was in a position of having actually seen the obstruction in ample time to have avoided running into the first car. The judge then held that this negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, exonerating the United States. This appeal followed.
The trial court's decision, Jimison v. United States, 267 F.Supp. 674 (D.Mont. 1967), makes manifest that there being no Montana case squarely in point, the judge carefully and fully evaluated Montana cases, as well as those of other jurisdictions, along with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornton v. Pender
...v. City of Waterloo, (1954) 245 Iowa 666, 63 N.W.2d 919. See: Kiner v. Northcutt, (10th Cir. 1970) 424 F.2d 222; Jimison v. United States, (9th Cir. 1967) 427 F.2d 1133; Baxter v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co., (8th Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 25; Pistolesi v. Staton, (4th Cir. 1973) 481 F.2d 1218;......
-
Crossen v. Foremost-McKesson, Inc.
...with similar facts. Erie Railway Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Jimison v. United States, 427 F.2d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 1970). Plaintiff alleges that he was discharged because he sought to correct violations of Thailand law which had existed under......
-
Young v. Flathead County
...cause, produces injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred. Jimison v. U.S. (D.C.Mont.1967), 267 F.Supp. 674, aff. 427 F.2d 1133; Sztaba v. Great Northern Railway Co. (1966), 147 Mont. 185, 195-196, 411 P.2d 379, 385. This definition of proximate cause incorporates the "bu......
- Gilchrist v. United States, 29456 Summary Calendar.