Dorothy Watson v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army

Fifth Circuit

Dorothy Watson v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army

689 F.2d 604, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24640

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 1982

Docket82-2116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 689 F.2d 604 (Dorothy Watson v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorothy Watson v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, 689 F.2d 604, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24640 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Dorothy Watson, employed by an independent contractor, was injured while working on ammunition at the Lone Star Ammunition Plant in Texarkana, Texas. Her employer operated the plant under a contract with the Department of the Army. The machinery and supplies used were, however, owned by the United States. While operating an assembly machine, her hand became entangled in it, resulting in the amputation of a finger. She sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, advancing theories of strict liability and negligence.

The district court concluded that a strict liability action could not be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Laird v. Neims, 406 U.S. 797, 92 S.Ct. 1899, 32 L.Ed.2d 499 (1972). It then found as a fact that the machine was defective and unreasonably dangerous because of an exposed “pinch point,” which caught her hand. The court also found that the government had tacitly approved the procedures Ms. Watson used when she was injured and had approved the design of the machine and the modification which created the defective pinch point. It viewed the question as whether the United States could be held liable if it negligently, if tacitly, approved the design of the machine. The court held, however, that under applicable Texas law the United States could not be held liable even if it had negligently approved the design because, under the rationale of Alexander v. United States, 605 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1977), the United States owed no duty to the employees of such an independent contractor as her employer.

*605 These holdings are correct. 1 The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

1

. Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1979), en banc granted and questions certified, 635 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1981), certified questions answered, 248 Ga. 19, 280 S.E.2d 345 (1981), panel decision reinstated, 660 F.2d 531 (1981), is inapposite as turning on Georgia law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Dorothy Watson, employed by an independent contractor, was injured while working on ammunition at the Lone Star Ammunition Plant in Texarkana, Texas. Her employer operated the plant under a contract with the Department of the Army. The machinery and supplies used were, however, owned by the United States. While operating an assembly machine, her hand became entangled in it, resulting in the amputation of a finger. She sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, advancing theories of strict liability and negligence.

The district court concluded that a strict liability action could not be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Laird v. Neims, 406 U.S. 797, 92 S.Ct. 1899, 32 L.Ed.2d 499 (1972). It then found as a fact that the machine was defective and unreasonably dangerous because of an exposed “pinch point,” which caught her hand. The court also found that the government had tacitly approved the procedures Ms. Watson used when she was injured and had approved the design of the machine and the modification which created the defective pinch point. It viewed the question as whether the United States could be held liable if it negligently, if tacitly, approved the design of the machine. The court held, however, that under applicable Texas law the United States could not be held liable even if it had negligently approved the design because, under the rationale of Alexander v. United States, 605 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1977), the United States owed no duty to the employees of such an independent contractor as her employer.

*605 These holdings are correct. 1 The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

1

. Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1979), en banc granted and questions certified, 635 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1981), certified questions answered, 248 Ga. 19, 280 S.E.2d 345 (1981), panel decision reinstated, 660 F.2d 531 (1981), is inapposite as turning on Georgia law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 F.2d 604, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothy-watson-v-john-o-marsh-secretary-of-the-army-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack