Marcum v. United States
Decision Date | 30 November 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1966.,71-1966. |
Parties | R. C. (Buck) MARCUM, the father of Marcus Marcum, a deceased minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, U. S. Corps of Engineers, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Francis H. Hare, Jr., Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., B. Don Hale, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Thomas L. Jones, Atty., Admiralty & Shipping Section, Dept. of Justice, Morton Hollander, Chief, Appellate Section-Civil Div., Walter H. Fleischer, Robert M. Feinson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellees.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
On June 14, 1966, appellant's 16-year-old son, Marcus Marcum, drowned in Lock 13 which was maintained by the United States Corps of Engineers, and located on the Black Warrior River near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Plaintiff brought suit against the United States alleging negligence and wanton misconduct in allowing a certain valve to remain open in the Lock, thereby creating a dangerous undercurrent beneath the calm surface of the water; and further, in removing protective guard rails and fences and generally failing to warn of the dangerous condition. Suit was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2674, and as an action arising on navigable waters. The conduct said to give rise to liability in an action for wrongful death in state territorial waters where the state gives such a right of action, as does Alabama is to be measured under the substantive standards of the state law. Hess v. United States, 361 U.S. 314, 319, 80 S.Ct. 341, 345, 4 L.Ed.2d 305 (1960). We, therefore, look to Alabama for the applicable substantive law. The District Court, sitting without a jury, found that the drowning was not the proximate result of any negligence on the part of defendant and entered its judgment accordingly.
The issue before us is whether the findings of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Appellant also urges that the court erred as a matter of law in misapplying the rule of proximate cause.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
OFFSHORE LOGISTICS, ETC. v. ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MFR'S
...Fifth Circuit applies the same burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a fact. See Marcum v. United States, 452 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1971). 15 Since plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof on the issue, defendants were under no obligation to introduce evi......
-
Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Central Penn Nat. Bank, Civ. A. No. 43188.
...81 F.Supp. 293 (D.Del.1948); National Motor Freight Traffic Ass'n v. United States, 242 F.Supp. 601 (D.D.C.1965); Marcum v. United States, 452 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1971). 7 In 1972, Paragraph 1(b) of § 9-301 was amended by the authors of the UCC to eliminate the knowledge requirement. As the o......
-
Severin v. Exxon Corp., 89-3816
...of proving disputed facts rests on the one affirming their existence and claiming rights or benefits therefrom." Marcum v. United States, 452 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir.1971); see also Rodriguez v. Olin Corp., 780 F.2d 491, 496 (5th However, Severin cannot now complain of Exxon's failure to intro......
-
Yates v. United States, Civ. No. 9278
...of New Mexico, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674; Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); Marcum v. United States, 452 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1971). 3. The United States is liable in tort where an aircraft crash is proximately caused by the negligent acts or omission......