United States v. Dooley, 14390.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 14390.,14390. |
| Citation | 231 F.2d 423 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, and Carroll, Hedlund & Associates, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellants, v. Richard E. DOOLEY and Jean Dooley, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles P. Moriarty, U. S. Atty., F. N. Cushman, Asst. U. S. Atty., A. T. Bateman, Richard C. Reed, S. W. Brethorst, Brethorst, Fowler, Dewar, Bateman & Reed, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
R. P. Guimont, Durham & Guimont, Seattle, Wash., for appellees.
Before STEPHENS, POPE and FEE, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought in the District Court against the United States of America to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the Federal Housing Administration, an agency of the United States, and Carroll, Hedlund & Associates, Inc., a Washington corporation, its agent.
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they are and each of them is a citizen and resident of the State of Washington.
After a trial by the court without a jury, the court granted a joint judgment against the United States and the Washington corporation.
At the oral argument attention was called to the fact that this judgment was entered on March 26, 1954, and that some months thereafter, on June 30, the opinion of this Court in Benbow v. Wolf, 217 F.2d 203, was handed down holding that the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Tort Claims Act over the United States will not support as ancillary thereto a claim against the agent of the government. In the instant case, there was no independent ground of jurisdiction between the Dooleys and Carroll, Hedlund & Associates. The stock basis of jurisdiction in virtue of diversity of citizenship was negatived by express allegations of the complaint. No federal question was outlined.
Jean Dooley, according to the testimony, fell upon a walk at a housing project because a wire which had been erected to protect newly seeded grounds of the project had been allowed to fall down and was lying loose across the sidewalk. The housing project was owned by the United States and was managed by Carroll, Hedlund & Associates, Inc., a Washington corporation, as the agent of the United States. The fences had been erected by a landscape gardening firm. Jean Dooley and her husband were tenants of this project, and these walks were maintained as commonways for the tenants. Various employees of the project and of Carroll, Hedlund & Associates were assigned the duties of inspecting and maintaining these fences continuously for the protection of those lawfully using the walks. All of such employees had notice that the wires so erected were apt to be down at any time day or night and be a danger to the user of the walks. The trial judge made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. US
...supports the proposition that the United States can be held liable under the FTCA for the negligence of its agent. In United States v. Dooley, 231 F.2d 423 (9th Cir.1955), a tenant fell upon a walk at a housing project because a wire which had been erected to protect newly seeded grounds ha......
-
McGarry v. United States
...v. United States, 211 F.2d 305 (5th Cir. 1954); Dushon v. United States, 243 F.2d 451, 17 Alaska 245 (9th Cir. 1957); United States v. Dooley, 231 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1955); United States v. Page, 350 F.2d 28 (10th Cir. 1965); Roberson v. United States, 382 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1967); and Grog......
-
Pearce v. United States
...Benbow v. Wolf, 217 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1954); Pacific Freight Lines v. United States, 239 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1956); United States v. Dooley, 231 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1955); Falk v. United States, 264 F.2d 238 (6 Cir. 10 In his dissent in Aldinger, Justice Brennan contends that prior to Alding......
-
Jacobs v. United States
...of the government, for whose tort the United States is liable by respondeat superior, joinder might be prohibited.2 United States v. Dooley, 231 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1955); Benbow v. Wolf, 217 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1954); see Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1969) (no pendent ju......