United States v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 29 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12695.,12695. |
| Citation | 235 F.2d 466 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. James R. PIERCE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John C. Crawford, Jr., U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., Paul A. Sweeney and Alan S. Rosenthal, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Joe Van Deveer, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Appellee, an electric lineman, was severely injured while aiding in the replacement of guy wires on a junction pole in an electrical substation at the Volunteer Ordnance Works, a government owned munitions plant near Chattanooga, Tennessee. The case was tried to the court, which found that the government was negligent in erecting and maintaining the substation in a condition hazardous to workmen, due, together with other circumstances, to the close proximity of a riser to the power pole and to the grounding of the upper portion of a guy wire just above appellee's head as he was working.
The government in its prime contract reserved control of the operations in the following provisions:
The court found that the government, which had possession of the premises through its agencies, failed to take adequate precautions to protect workmen on the power lines and that this constituted negligence of the government's employees. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff.
In its memorandum opinion the District Court made elaborate findings of fact and conclusions of law. It carefully considered and discussed the numerous contentions of the government reiterated in this court. While all points raised have been fully considered here we deem it unnecessary to repeat what the District Court has so thoroughly covered. The findings of fact are supported by the record and the conclusions of law are in accordance with the applicable statute and decisions.
The judgment is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGarry v. United States
...being imposed upon proof of failure to exercise due care." The district court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, United States v. Pierce, 235 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1956), which "The court District Court found that the government, which had possession of the premises through its agencies, fa......
-
Montellier v. United States
...the lower courts did not so interpret the Dalehite opinion. In Pierce v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 721 (E.D.Tenn.1955), aff'd, 235 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1956), in which the defense relied on Dalehite, the court held that, once the decision to construct an electrical substation and transmit po......
-
Dyer v. U.S.
...(1953), 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427; Pierce v. United States, D.C.Tenn. (1955), 142 F.Supp. 721, 734, affirmed C.A.6th, 235 F.2d 466. The Court thinks the Grogan and Stratton courts have the better part of the argument on this issue than did the court in Mahoney I. The FTCA pro......
-
Conner On Behalf of Conner v. U.S.
...strict liability claim. 50. Plaintiffs, Memorandum, p. 4, ¶ 1. 51. Pierce v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 721 (D.C.Tenn.), affirmed, 235 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1956); Mahoney v. United States, 216 F.Supp. 523 (D.C.Tenn.1962). 52. This is phrased in terms of "inherently dangerous" in order opinion......