Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States

211 F.2d 886, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2635, 1954 A.M.C. 887
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 22, 1954
Docket14747_1
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 886 (Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States) 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
Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States, 211 F.2d 886, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2635, 1954 A.M.C. 887 (5th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Sec. 1346(b) Title 28 U.S.C., the suit was for cargo damage from the wetting of the cargo of the Barge AS-16, while in tow of the tug “Navajo”, as a result of the grounding of the tug on Chandeleur Island on or about October 1, 1951, “due solely to the failure of the light on the island.”

The claim was that the failure of the light was due to the negligence of Chief Petty Officer Stone and other officers and members of the Coast Guard in charge of “aids to navigation” in failing to properly check the light to see whether it was operating properly between September 7th and October 1st, and that the grounding of the tug was due to the negligence of the Coast Guard in maintaining and servicing the light and in not notifying vessels that it was not functioning.

The United States filing a motion to dismiss, the motion was sustained on the authority of Dalehite v. U. S., 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427.

Appealing from the order, appellants are here insisting that the facts alleged as ground for recovery here do not bring the case within the facts of, or the reasons for, the decision in the Delehite case while appellee as vigorously insists that that decision and the decision in the Feres case 1 are controlling here.

We are of the clear opinion that this is so, and that, under the principles, governing the liability of the United States under the invoked act, laid down in those cases, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152.

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

Related

Lee A. Barnes, Jr. v. United States
448 F.3d 1065 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
Blessing v. United States
447 F. Supp. 1160 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Aero Enterprises, Inc. v. American Flyers, Inc.
167 F. Supp. 239 (N.D. Texas, 1958)
Jemison v. the Dredge Duplex
163 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. Alabama, 1958)
Mrs. Cordie Ola Fair v. United States
234 F.2d 288 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Marvin R. Ray v. United States
228 F.2d 574 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Indian Towing Co. v. United States
350 U.S. 61 (Supreme Court, 1955)
United States v. Lawter
219 F.2d 559 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Goodwill Industries of El Paso v. United States
218 F.2d 270 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 F.2d 886, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2635, 1954 A.M.C. 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indian-towing-co-inc-v-united-states-ca5-1954.